marXian

Yes, it sounds like PTS or Duke would be a good fit for you. I've known some more progressive Protestants who, for example, left evangelicalism but weren't quite comfortable with the more "old school" mainline folks, and found a great fit at both those places. It's not a bad thing to have options at this point. It wasn't until 18 months into my time in seminary that I firmly decided I would apply to PhD programs. I came in thinking I would, got a part time job in ministry, thought I would be a pastor, changed my mind, etc., etc. It's common to go through that since seminaries are made up of tons of different people with all sorts of different backgrounds and interests. It can really get you thinking about what you'd like to do with degree. That said, don't feel like you absolutely have to do the MDiv. I honestly wouldn't recommend it unless you're seriously considering ordained ministry of some sort. You're going to have to do a lot of practical ministry courses that are going to feel like a waste of money unless you've got your sights set on a ministry position. The only exception might be is if you really get into practical theology. Divinity schools and seminaries offer general master's degrees. There's a reason Yale designates some of their degrees as "concentrated"--many seminaries and divinity schools don't offer degrees with that level of concentration. I have an MA in theology from an evangelical seminary and I found it very general compared to the MA in English that I completed before it. It was honestly a little too general for the work I'm doing now. I've found that I've had to do a bit of catching up in my PhD program on the theology side of things (mostly the historical stuff.)

Before anyone can give you a helpful answer, it would be helpful for us to know what your goals are. Are you wanting to go into ministry, or are you thinking about PhD programs beyond the MDiv? If your plan is ministry, then how conservative/progressive you are and the kinds of churches/ministries/etc. you'd like to work for are is going to matter a lot in making the decision. If you can provide some more info, you'll get better advice.

Setting aside the fact that it sounds like sacklunch knows some things about CUA that maybe others do not and the fact that the job market is abysmal, I'd say this: I would think long and hard about turning down a PhD offer. Again, if you've already moved past or come to peace with the fact that the job market is really tough and you can see yourself doing nothing other than PhD work, I'd say you need a really really really good reason not to take a PhD offer when it comes your way. PhD programs across the board are super competitive. Sure, T1 schools are more competitive, but I'd bet that most universities and seminaries do not admit more than 15-18% of applicants to PhD programs in our field, and you can bet that there are more than 18 qualified applicants in a pool of 100. These things are so subjective and require more luck and uncertainty than any of us really want to know. An applicant who gets rejected from a particular program maybe would have gotten in with the same application the year before or the year after. There are just so many factors outside of your control and so few applicants are THAT applicant that every program wants (even though all of us would like to imagine that we were/are!) All that to say that even though an MTS from ND is going to give you even better prep than you already have for applying in a couple years, it is still no guarantee that you'll get in anywhere--even CUA again. There may be other, more important factors to consider here that outweigh what I'm saying, but I do think the randomness of PhD apps is something to consider.

Are you wanting to do NT? If so, the MTS would certainly better your chances at getting into a top tier program and would all but guarantee your acceptance to somewhere like Fuller provided you did your homework and made contact with the appropriate people there (I'm an alum.) Giving yourself as much language training as possible it going to help a lot (though there are others here who can speak better to that than I can.) Getting to advanced levels with the relevant languages is going to show you are extremely serious about doing PhD work in a language-intensive discipline.

Two W's in undergrad is not going to be a big deal. The P/F for an advanced language course is going to matter a lot if your interests are dependent upon that language. P/NP in a language course is basically like not taking it (officially). You may have learned everything you would have had you taken it for a grade, but adcoms have no way of knowing that. Now, if you're just applying to general MA/MTS programs, it's probably not going to matter, but you'll definitely want to make sure you have language courses that make up for the P/F if the language is central to future study (assuming you want to apply for PhD programs.)

Not selected for Germany research grant. Soooooo unbelievably frustrating. Congrats to all accepted, and come on DAAD results!

Just a quick word on tuition, stipends, debt, etc. from someone deep into a PhD. The majority of students who attend a div school or seminary for an MA/MTS/MDiv, etc. in religion/theology goes into debt to do it (and usually work at least part time) or have a full time job and attend part time taking 5-10 years to complete the degree--or have a partner willing to support them through full time work. Div schools and seminaries are not "normal" graduate programs. They admit hundreds of students as opposed to a small cohort of 5-10. Many seminaries are "stand alone" institutions with no undergrad population paying tuition, so they can offer very few of their students any real money at all. My "scholarship" in seminary was $680 a quarter. One course cost $1500, so it was a drop in the bucket. The schools that have the resources to offer significant tuition remission are, in my view, great deals because you can go into relatively less debt than you would attending other seminaries that don't have R1 university resources. Whether or not you should go into debt for the degree is somewhat relative. If you already have a ton of debt from your undergrad, then sure, it's probably unwise. The problem is that there just are not that many fully funded MA programs in religious studies, and if your interests are more theological/interpretive, then those programs aren't going to be a good fit anyway. I went through seminary (MA in theology) over three years and was fortunate enough to find part time work at a church over that whole period. I didn't know anyone at my seminary who wasn't working at least part time. I had no debt from undergrad or my first MA, and relatively little debt elsewhere (no auto loans, small CC debt, etc.) so I figured that as long as I got into a fully funded PhD, going into debt for this one degree wasn't going to kill me. I'm also married now, and my spouse works full time, which makes the situation a little easier.

Technically applicants have until April 15 to accept or decline offers, which means Syracuse is still in the window of sending notice. I remember in my app year (three years ago), I had to solicit a decision from Syracuse because I was going to an admitted students visiting weekend elsewhere, and I wanted to know whether or not they were on the table. I had been in contact with the DGS over the summer, so I felt comfortable sending her an email asking if decisions had been made. They were, and I was rejected. This was at the very beginning of March. I honestly don't remember if I received an official rejection (though I probably did by mail and didn't even open it!) I'd send the department an email and just say you'd like to be able to make a decision soon if possible (even if you've already made it.)

German theology and social theory at the turn of the 20th century (Weber, Troeltsch, Holl), critical theory, political theology, Neo-Kantian philosophy of history and religion, theory and method in religious studies.

A friend of mine (who is not on this forum) heard from UCSB today. Accepted to the philosophy and religion track with funding package.

At the risk of sounding a bit harsh (sorry), it is incomprehensible to say that theology isn't ideas when "inside" a faith context. That isn't what I was saying. My use of "religious ideas" was just to say that not all religious traditions conceive of themselves as having a "theology"--at least not in the Christian sense--and that some of the scholars mentioned, e.g. Orsi, are more interested in the "lived experiences" of religious adherents (in Orsi's case, Catholics) apart from the authoritative articulation of doctrine (or perhaps influenced by, but by no means coterminous with.) I'm all for blowing up the distinction between inside and outside in RS, but making a sharp distinction between "theology" and "religious ideas" is not going to be helpful. From my own perspective, the question needs to be how theology speaks to other kinds of religious ideas, and vice versa, where these things find points of cohesion and departure, where theology is inextricable from politics, history, sociality, etc. and vice versa. That doesn't entail thinking theology (or religion in general) as something special and quarantined from these other spheres of human life. It entails keeping these categories fluid. Josh, I definitely understand where you're coming from. But because Foucault/Asad, it's not going to matter to most secular programs what divinity schools are telling their students. From the secular program perspective, divinity schools are creating subjects to think in the most basic categorical terms of liberal Protestantism while still believing themselves to by post-Christian. I'm sure someday someone will come up with a version of Godwin's Law for RS debates involving Foucault and/or Asad, but for now, that is the language of the discipline by and large.

To the OP: Joseph45's explanation is basically right. You need to figure out how to balance your theological commitments with the fact that secular programs are probably not going to care about them and/or find them problematic for doing rigorous academic work depending on what they are and how much you want them to come into your work. This is a highly contentious claim in RS. Those who think theology is important to understanding religious history or doing ethnographic or sociological work in contemporary Christian groups a very few in number and mostly theologians. I'm a theologian in a secular RS department and have had many, many conversations with folks about the relationship between theology and the academic study of religion (though mostly good!) But I'd say views in the field more broadly range from extremely negative to mostly indifferent. And theology is not even on the radar at all of people in other humanities/social science fields (e.g. sociology). That's not to say that theology in some sense isn't important at all though in our field. Amy Hollywood, Robert Orsi, Sylvester Johnson, Tyler Roberts, Constance Furey, Amira Mittermaier, to name just a few examples, are all folks who in some sense are interested in "religious ideas" as articulated by religious adherents and/or theological-philosophical ideas (not just Christian ones). But I would not at all assume that a "secular" department is going to care at all about religious ideas which are typically taken to be hegemonic, imperialistic, etc. (and really aren't wrong on that count.) I have a colleague with an MA in American religious history from FSU's program, and he's a fantastic scholar. His lack of theological training there has not made him a worse scholar in that field. I know this is splitting hairs from the perspective of the secular academy (and beside the point of this thread), but I have to say: Fuller and Dallas are not the same. That's not to say that Fuller isn't more conservative than a place like Vanderbilt (it definitely is), but that's mostly because of the students who attend rather than the faculty.

Being able to start in the summer usually depends on whether or not a school does rolling admissions. If so, then it shouldn't be a problem. But if you've been officially admitted for the Fall 2015 term, then you may not be able to do anything until that term. At my institution, incoming grad students are able to petition their departments to be allowed to begin language courses if they need them (modern languages) in the summer before their first term, but I have no idea how the funding works in those situations (though if funding isn't part of your admission, then you wouldn't have to worry about that.) Honestly though, there is absolutely no shame in moving back in with your parents. It's a pretty common occurrence for folks in our line of work (i.e. grad school in the humanities.) And while we all have plenty of friends who have jobs that pay them very well, who are maybe looking into buying their first home, among our grad school peers, virtually no one is in that boat unless they have a partner who rakes it in. Even though I'm married, my wife and I would both definitely be willing to move back in with either of our parents for a while if it came to that (assuming they'd be willing to have us!) I would only move early if you can line up some work in the new location. Otherwise, living rent free (or extremely low rent) with your parents sounds like a pretty good deal.

The best packages are going to be something along the lines of 5 years full tuition plus a stipend that is dependent upon the region of the country and health insurance. If you're in Bloomington, IN or Milwaukee, etc., your stipend is not going to be as hefty as those who are in New Haven or NYC. But since it's far more expensive to live in those latter places, the amount of the stipend isn't always the best indicator. You want to look at the other particulars. - Do they fund summers? If so, how many? This can be huge down the road of your program. Some schools offer 3 summers, some 4, some zero. - What's the breakdown of the funding (i.e. the split between university fellowship and TA/GAship)? Some schools afford their first year students the tremendous luxury of not having to teach (and being on fellowship) while other schools have their students TAing right away. Some schools are flexible about how that breakdown is divvied up. For example, say you have two years of fellowship (no teaching) and three of TA. Following the first year (usually fellowship in this scenario), a program might allow a student to teach just one term per year for the next two years, "banking" terms of TAship, while spreading out the remaining year of fellowship over those two "half" teaching years. If you're the sort of person who might want to focus all of your energy on your exams (for example) then the ability to take off the term you'll be studying for those might be attractive. Some schools may not allow students to do that until the third year. Other schools may not allow that at all, setting the whole schedule in stone from the beginning (e.g. year 1 fellowship, years 2 & 3 TAship, year 4 fellowship, year 5 TAship.) - You're also going to want to know what the policy is if you win an external fellowship/grant to go do research for a year somewhere later in your program. In some situations (I think most), if a student wins external funding, that award defers the normal funding to the 6th year. So, for example, if I'm planning on using my second fellowship year (in which I wouldn't be teaching) in my 4th year, but instead I win a Fulbright grant to go abroad for that year, that fellowship year gets pushed back, and (assuming the program is flexible) I get to decide if I want to use the last fellowship year for my fifth or sixth year (and the other would be TAship.) That's crucial, because there may be some funding situations where that doesn't happen (though I'd honestly be pretty surprised). In addition to the deferral of funding, some universities offer students additional money on top of what the grant pays because, depending on your school's location, the monthly grant payment may be less than what your stipend would have normally been. So the school "tops off" your grant so that you're still making what you would if you stayed (in order to incentivize applying for these sorts of awards.) I know that's a lot to take in and it might be hard to give it that much forethought, but these are definitely important things to know about the packages you've been offered and the policies of the schools that offered them.

mdiv2014, do you honestly feel like no one answered your question? I think many of us provided you basically the same answer put in different ways. Since you as of yet have no experience working toward a dissertation, I think it would be wise to listen to those of us who are already there. As has already been mentioned, the diversity you're looking for often comes from both teaching as well as lectures, symposia, job talks, etc. I'm happy to use myself as an example: I study German theology and social thought at the turn of the 20th century. So I'm reading a lot of philosophy in and around that period as well as theology. I'm also developing subfields in critical theory and political theology. Still, I've TA'd Intro to Religion, Intro to Buddhism, Intro to New Testament, and will be doing Intro to Hebrew Bible next quarter. Our department has a theology colloquium, which I'm co-organizing this year. Our February meeting featured one of our Buddhism scholars discussing her latest book with us. Though the discussion was obviously limited in certain ways, it was really productive and interesting. I could go on and list all of the lectures, job talks, etc., that I've attended over my time in my program that have very little or nothing to do with my dissertation. All that to say, I don't feel like I have to take courses in things far outside my area in order to become conversant with those things. In fact, once courses stop (usually after the second year) you're still expected to learn things, which has to come through self-directed study. After your second post, I'm having a hard time understanding what your exact complaint is.

It depends on the program, I think, but if one is in a religious studies program, this is often accomplished through teaching. Often tenured professors are well-rounded because when they were junior faculty they had to teach courses that were only technically in their realm of expertise but probably contained a lot of material they had to learn or refresh their memory about on the fly (e.g. Intro to Religion.) With regard to the actual PhD process, it's pretty well accepted that the dissertation is a process of ever-narrowing down on a very specific problem with a more or less unique solution and contribution to the field. It takes a ton of energy concentrated on one's little slice of the field in order to produce something adequate and even more to produce something that is nearly ready to be published. That said, I do think it's wise to keep connected to a broader range of interests, though it's usually easier to do that if there's at least some connection to your field. That can be done through reading groups, attending lectures, etc.

Guys, this thread is from two years ago.

Congrats on being admitted! I'm assuming you were admitted to a PhD program? If your school is part of this: http://www.cgsnet.org/april-15-resolutionthen you don't have to respond until April 15. Of course, many schools (and waitlisted students) appreciate it if people decline their offers in a timely manner once they've made a decision. But if this first acceptance is part of the CGS, then they will not be expecting anything from you unless you're formally accepting or declining their offer. They are used to long periods of silence from admitted students whom they know have tough decisions ahead. Edit: Note that this resolution only officially applies to offers of financial support. But since a financial package and admission often go hand in hand, that doesn't really matter. It only matters if the school has not offered financial support and is demanding a response before April 15. Most schools not offering a financial package are wise enough to know that such a demand will not play in their favor, so they tend to abide by the April 15 deadline as well.

It's hard to say whether or not a majority of apps are competitive (though if we're talking strictly more than 50%, I'd have to say yes.) When I was applying (2011), I was told by a DGS at a TT program that they do get a sizable fraction of applicants who have absolutely no business applying, either because their GRE scores or GPA(s) were incredibly low, they had degrees that were way out of field, and any number of other reasons one could think of. So if a school gets 200 applications the year you apply, you're not going up against 199 other people who have exactly your credentials or better. If you have a M* degree or two, your application is likely going to get a good look. Looking up program statistics reports is a good idea. You'll see that acceptance rates do vary year to year, but it will give you an idea of the range and average. Most don't break down the rates by track, so you're looking at the overall acceptance rate, which could be a bit misleading in some cases depending on your specific field.

The vast majority of people applying in the sciences are applying straight from undergrad. The reverse is true in our discipline (and increasingly more humanities disciplines.) But GradCafe hasn't felt the need to add the ability to post a M* GPA if relevant. Honestly, I wouldn't put too much stock in those self-reported stats.

FYI If you guys haven't been active on the site before: Trolls exist here too It tends not to happen with religious studies (philosophy gets it the worst I think) but sometimes disgruntled applicants or perhaps mischievous PhD students post fake early results (because they know from previous years when these things are typically released) in order to rile up current applicants and make them think they've maybe been rejected. It's possible that someone genuinely received an interview invite early--but I'd probably go with what a faculty member says over the gradcafe results search.

My comments about languages only applied if you were planning on studying something primarily text-based (e.g. NT/OT or other ancient texts that require extensive language training.) Most programs make it possible for students to get their modern research languages under their belt during the first couple years of their PhD work (which is usually coursework.) It's not that easy to do that from scratch normally, so it's a good idea to try to get at least some research language work done before you start. But if you only had to do one language, that doesn't sound like it would be that much extra work. Usually for people interested in doing philosophy of religion/theology in religious studies programs, extensive M* work doesn't seem to be as necessary as it is for people working on texts. (Though I do say that as someone with two M* degrees myself). If your undergrad work is strong, you're an excellent writer, you have good letters, you should have a decent shot with just a one year M* degree. You may have a decent shot now, given your prep so far and your interests. It's not unheard of that undergrads are admitted directly into RS PhD programs. Good luck!

I'm assuming by "disadvantage" you mean applying to [American] PhD programs after your M* degree. At the MA level (or M.Sc as it were), I don't think you're automatically at an enormous disadvantage, but I do think it's still a disadvantage. How much of a disadvantage depends on what your area of interest is for PhD programs. At the most basic level, you're doing a one year as opposed to two year degree, which adcoms will definitely see as not as rigorous; plus, British schools do tend to have higher admissions rates for American students because Americans don't get any money to go. Most of the best M* programs in religion in the US give their students some money, so they're more competitive (though not as competitive as MA programs in other fields.) I see your BA is in RS from UCSB (jealous that you got to spend four years there, btw) so I'm assuming you're either interested in anthro, sociology, history, and/or ethnographic methods or maybe something textual/historical? If that's the case, and you're interested in American/Western contemporary religions or something like that, you're not at any maximal disadvantage. But anything involving specific language training (Sanskrit, Hindi, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, other ANE or Southeast Asian languages) and you will certainly be at a disadvantage. A one year M* is not enough time to get the appropriate language training to even be able to apply and be competitive to most programs where you would study things involving knowledge of those languages. You would certainly need to come back to the US and do another M* degree (an MTS or something). There is some disagreement among the regulars here as to how much language training one needs in order to be competitive for PhD applications into NT/OT/ANE tracks in RS/theology departments. I am not in any of those fields, but I do know someone who only did one M* degree and is in a top tier program for NT (was accepted to three top tier programs actually). That anecdotal evidence isn't supposed to demonstrate anything beyond the fact that it is possible to be accepted with one M* degree and only 2-3 years of formal language training. To be honest, I think this friend of mine is literally just a genius (we were friends in seminary) meaning this person is the exception not the rule. Which is to say that if you decide to go to Edinbrugh, and you want to continue on to a PhD program, you should definitely apply to them next year as well as other M* programs at the big name div schools and see what happens. That'll tell you what your next step should be if you're determined to get in somewhere.

1) I would at least wear a coat. Tie/no tie is your preference for something like this. Nice pants, dress shirt and a sport coat/blazer will be enough to show that you're a professional. 2) It's kind of hard to say what they'll expect to hear from you. Some programs might expect that a visiting prospective applicant would be the one with all the questions. But I think the answer to this question is related to the third. 3) I would err on the side of caution here. Faculty don't expect their admitted students to be clones of their interests, etc. before they're even admitted and they definitely don't expect their students to be become their clones through the process of the program. There is some wiggle room when it comes to fit. Which means you don't need to worry about carefully monitoring everything that comes out of your mouth. That said, you don't want to be so open that it seems you're being careless with how you're presenting yourself. You need to find a balance, e.g. I would only bring up life experience if they ask you about it, and even then keep it as concise as possible so they don't feel like you're giving your life story. I agree with eteshoe that you should focus some attention on the more practical aspects of the program. Demonstrate that you have an idea of what graduate work entails. Show that you care about teaching and getting that experience. Show some interest in the academic life of the department, which, btw, I wouldn't phrase as either "culture" or "politics" since those words can come across as combative descriptors (especially politics.) Asking about what sorts of people the department invites to speak, what sorts of events the department hosts, how grad students are involved in that, how well the department collaborates with other departments that are relevant to your interests, etc. will help you come across as someone who wants to contribute something to the atmosphere the department has created and be a good colleague. Of course, getting across your own research interests in a clear and interesting way is going to be important too, but I think these other things will help make an impression.

Thanks for the clarifications. Those things weren't clear in the initial post, so I hope you weren't offended! You're new to the forum, but we definitely get posts from time to time from people who really have no clue what PhD work entails (which is fine--that's what this forum is for!) I've found it's always best to be blunt with people upfront. The admissions process is really just the beginning, the prelude even, to a long and arduous journey involving heavy doses of painful reality (i.e. rejection and questions of self-worth, intelligence, etc.) which needs to be faced sooner rather later. It sounds like you already have a basic sense of that though! That negativity isn't to say that a Ph.D program is a pit of never-ending misery--but it can be if you're not prepared for it! Anyway, based on your comments, you're going to need to find places that are either friendly to theology or you need to cast your interest in a more philosophy of religion sort of light. For example, Stanford, Brown, Columbia, UNC, and probably Harvard (since the ThD is no more) are not, generally speaking, going to be interested in a theological project, even hostile toward one. There are faculty at these places who are exceptions (e.g. Brent Sockness at Stanford, Thomas Lewis at Brown, Mark Taylor at Columbia) but I'm not sure those people would be the right fit for your project idea (Lewis is maybe the closest.) Even at a program like UVA, which I think would be a good fit because they have a theology and culture track (Theology, Ethics, & Culture) as well as some faculty who do religion and literature, you'd have to make sure your SOP didn't have any explicitly confessional interest in it. At any rate, I think any program that has a religion and literature, theology and culture, or some similar track is going to be a good fit for you. Also be on the look out for schools that have certificate programs, official interdisciplinary groups, etc. that could foster your interdisciplinary interests. For example, I attend Northwestern which has something called the interdisciplinary cluster initiative. As a part of the critical theory cluster, I did most of my coursework outside the religious studies department with the philosophy, German, and political science departments. Even though my home department doesn't do a lot of work explicitly in critical theory (outside a couple profs), I was able to foster that interest and incorporate it into my work within the department including coursework, my third qualifying exam this spring, and my dissertation. Other schools, I'm sure, have similar interdisciplinary programs that encourage students to get outside of their home field. If you found a prof who was interested in Anglican theology--or at least willing to work with someone who was--plus an institutional atmosphere which strongly fostered interdisciplinary work, you could make your project (or some version of it) happen. The fact that you feel very open is really good. I've altered the focus of my research twice since being admitted, a story I'd share via PM if you're interested in hearing how that works. Most people when they're applying (myself included) are usually under the impression that you are largely stuck doing whatever your propose to do with maybe some slight variations. I haven't found that to be the case though. Lots of people change their dissertation topics once they're in and sometimes drastically so. Of course, it certainly doesn't have to. But your openness right now is going to help you write a successful SOP when the time comes and have a really fruitful experience during your coursework once you're in.