marXian

Theophany is a little more optimistic than I am, but I think is largely right, especially about these programs not training people in any way for ministry. Where I differ I think from theophany is that it's not clear to me that your project fits immediately in any of these programs. I think one of the most important things you need to work out in the next few months is your research interests. The reason I say I'm having trouble seeing how your project would fit into a top tier program (or any "secular" academic program) is that it's not clear to me that you're actually interested in theology, or poetry, or the role these figures play in faith communities, etc. You're interested in people who are/were "poet-priests." At this point, are you able to say more about your interest in these people? I.e., Who are they? Is there a specific tradition in which they circulate? Are you interested in their theology qua "systematic" theology? or their poetry as a kind of theological expression? You're going to need to pin down something a little more specific than what you've given us here. The other thing (echoing theophany) is that your ultimate career goal of being a kind of poet-pastor/priest is not going to be all that attractive to top tier programs (generally) nor any strictly academic institution (i.e. non-seminary.) Those programs are interested in producing scholars who are going to teach, research, and write at the highest level. If you're planning on incorporating you're own poetry into your dissertation or something... you're going to want to plan on not doing that. No program worth its salt is going to allow that. Regarding the ministry part, people definitely enter those programs with the intention of keeping the door open for ministry (myself included), but while you're in the program, you really have to focus on developing the academic side of things. There isn't much time in most programs to maintain a professional ministry career and be as successful as possible on the academic side. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But don't expect an adcom to be really thrilled about someone who not only already knows he/she wants to do academic work part time once done but also wants to split his/her time three ways between ministry, scholarship, and poetry. This is a different story if you were considering seminaries. My alma mater (Fuller Seminary) admits people into the theology and culture program who do more creative stuff like you describe. And, of course, many PhD students there are doing coursework part time while they work in ministry. The problem is that you'll likely have to fork out some of your own money or work really hard to win some outside scholarships and fellowships--something that people at the US programs you listed don't have to do. I think it's still possible to ultimately do what you want to do professionally--but anything ministry/poetry related while you're in school is going to be on the side and not officially a part of your PhD program. In some ways that's really good. It's great to have a creative outlet, to volunteer somewhere, etc. so you can get outside your graduate work for a bit. It's hard to say whether any of the specific schools you mention are going to be good fits without a more specific direction regarding your interests. Every school could be a real stretch or some of them (especially ones that have "theology and culture" tracks) could be potential fits depending on how your frame your proposed project.

Start with asking yourself why you want to pursue an MA in RS or an MTS (as opposed to an MDiv.) Is there something in particular that draws you to the academic study of religion and/or theology? Even if it's a very broad reason right now, it's a starting point. You can begin to narrow in on something a little more specific from there. But also remember that at the M* level, adcoms are not looking for a ton of specificity. They just want to know, in fairly broad strokes, what interests you about pursuing graduate level work in RS or theology. At this level, I don't think reference to specific faculty is really necessary, but I also don't think it'll hurt.

You should check out the screen cultures PhD program at Northwestern. NU has a program called the Interdisciplinary Cluster Initiative in which grad students participate with students from other disciplines in "clusters" which are focused upon specific interdisciplinary fields. The critical theory cluster at NU is incredible. The cluster program also allows interested students to earn a certificate in the fields around which particular clusters are organized including critical theory and gender and sexuality studies. Also connected to the critical theory cluster is NU's Paris Program in Critical Theory, which is an amazing program for advanced PhD students to apply to spend a term in Paris participating in a special seminar and pursuing dissertation research.

I'm not in your field, but Barry Wimpfheimer at Northwestern might be someone to look into. He works on the Babylonian Talmud, legal narrative, etc. He's also a faculty affiliate with the Critical Theory Cluster at NU (http://www.wcas.northwestern.edu/criticaltheory/) which, if you're interested in literary theory, would be something you could be involved in. Critical/literary theory is very strong at NU.

PM'd you.

I applied with nearly identical stats three years ago (161 V, 156 Q, 5.0 AW, and M* degrees in English and theology, 3.89, 3.7 GPA respectively). I went 2 for 10. One of my rejections was from Marquette (I wanted to work with D. Stephen Long in theology/philosophy.) It's hard to speculate, but I think my rejections from the TT programs I applied to had primarily to do with my GRE scores, and with the other schools... who knows? My advisor where I am now told me she was impressed by my writing in both my sample and my SOP, and that's primarily what got me in. The adcom also saw some affinity between my work and two others they wanted to admit to the Jewish Studies track who were working in Jewish philosophy/theology. The difficult part about this process is that there is a much larger subjective element than any applicant would want. Your admittance is partially dependent upon the politics of the department, how many students each track can take in a given year, whether or not your POI can take on another student, how much your POI is willing to fight for the students he/she really wants, etc. Or you could be a fantastic candidate applying against someone else doing something very similar who grabs the adcom's interest just a little bit more. Even if you both blow away the adcom and the adcom really wants to admit you both, depending on the institution, funding constraints could force them to cut one from the final group. Unfortunately, those are aspects you can't control at all. An anecdote to illustrate what I'm talking about: I contacted Mark Taylor (at Columbia) when I was trying to narrow down schools to apply to and he told me straight up I shouldn't apply. He wasn't being mean. He thought my work sounded interesting and promising, my background had a unique aspect (because I had an English MA), but he just received so, so many applications directed toward working with him that the chances of doing what I wanted to do with him were basically zero because he had to choose among a pool of ridiculously qualified applicants. He passes on dozens of amazing applicants every year, and there is nothing he can really do about that. And I'm sure that out of the ones he does want to advocate for, maybe some years only one or two of those are admitted. Or maybe none. So I didn't apply. Btw, regarding your Columbia/Brown question, I'm inclined to say Columbia, but it really depends on the area to which you're applying. The point is all you can do is put together the absolute best application that you can, which I know is frustratingly vague. We really want to have more control over these things, but unfortunately there's no perfect formula. People with amazing stats and a great SOP get shut out of admissions every year (though one's chances are certainly better with those things, to be sure.) As I've said before on this board, graduate school is simply a never ending parade of arbitrary rejections. You get some wins in there, but you experience far more rejection. I'm applying for major funding for the first time this year for the 2015-16 school year. It's honestly felt like Ph.D applications all over again in that I feel like my future hinges on the decisions that are going to be made. And I'll have to wait 5-6 months (much longer than a grad school app response!) before I know my fate. If I win an award, I get to go to Germany for the next academic year to start my dissertation and I get a to put a huge award on my CV (Fulbright or DAAD research grant). With the job market the way it is, every little thing helps. The thing is that these processes can be just as arbitrary and subjective as the Ph.D app process (maybe sometimes more so.) Unlike with my Ph.D apps, I have no idea who will read my grant applications. These reading committees are made up of academics from just about every field. I've written my proposals for non-experts, but maybe someone still won't get it--or maybe someone in RS will read it, and he/she will strongly disagree with what I'm trying to do with my project! All of this to say that all the things we apply for as academics have some frustratingly high level of subjectivity and randomness like this built into them, beginning with Ph.D apps.

Thanks for the clarification, theophany. I understand what you and Joseph45 are trying to get across. I didn't read the OP's initial post in the same way, but I do see that he/she is confused about what religious studies is. I also agree that as humanities disciplines go, RS is perhaps more nebulous. So yes, for the application, it's perhaps unhelpful, especially given the confusion. But the OP should understand that once in an RS dept., every dept. has it's own way of conceiving "religious studies" and/or "theory and method," and that will probably have an effect on his/her experience. Of course, it depends on the department as well as the field of study, but I haven't met any RS people who haven't at least had to take seminars and an exam that cover the "religious studies" aspect of their program.

Again, regarding the discipline thing, I was responding to theophany, not the OP. You seem to be a huge fan of people who think RS shouldn't be a "discipline," so maybe we should just table that little disagreement. The condescension isn't necessary. To the OP, there is no such thing as a "religious studies concentration." That's like saying someone has a PhD with a "philosophy concentration" in philosophy. You get a PhD in religious studies with a concentration in X. E.g. people study HB/OT in religious studies departments, others study American religious history, others study religion in southeast Asia, but unless you're studying HB/OT or other ancient texts and/or their reception, you're not going to need the languages you listed to gain admittance into an RS program. Is that what you're trying to get across, Joseph45? I get that the OP is a little confused about the differences between RS and doing a PhD at a seminary, and doesn't really understand what religious studies is, but the point of the forum is to help people figure that out, not to say "You don't know anything about the discipline at all."

Unless of course one is talking about HB/OT in a seminary context versus an RS department... I think there's a difference, especially in considering what sorts of job prospects one will have coming out. I'm assuming that's what the OP means by "Theology v. RS" Yes, RS does admit students and hire people who specialize in particular subfields--but are you saying that's different than, say, an English lit or comp lit department hiring people who specialize in their subfields? English departments contain people who work on Chaucer as well as those who work on Melville--two completely different skill sets and areas of expertise. Does that mean literature is not a "thing" even if the boundaries of that thing, it's definition, whether or not it should exist as a category, etc. are constantly contested? Even your example of philosophy of religion doesn't quite work as a counter example because phil. of religion is a subfield of some philosophy departments, where one would earn a PhD in philosophy. I guess I don't understand your point. I was responding to theophany's statement "Religious studies isn't a discipline," which to me is a bit misleading.

Just to be clear: Religious Studies is absolutely a "thing," i.e. a discipline, unless you're Russell McCutcheon or Tomoko Masuzawa. There are RS departments, and like any other humanities/social science department, they all specialize in different things, but there still are conversations that circulate within departments regarding theory and method in religious studies (not to mention seminars that most 1st year PhD students have to take in T&M.) There's an entire history (histories, really) out there of theorizing "religion" itself and asking what it means to study religion in the academy. The vast majority of folks on this board are text scholars (or want to be text scholars), which is great, but it's not wholly representative of "religious studies" which is a different sort of environment in which to study religion than a seminary/div school. There's some overlap to be sure (especially between div schools and RS departments) but there are also important differences that sort of get washed away on this forum in particular--not a knock on anyone; it's just the nature of who posts here and the kinds of questions that are usually asked. That said, languages like those usually learned in seminary (Greek/Hebrew) are not required simply as a basic requirement for everyone applying to an RS program, but as others have said, are dependent upon what you're studying. There are people in my department who are not doing any language at all because they're Americanists and the The Graduate School has decided to do away with a blanket language requirement (which is becoming more and more typical now.) In my case, I did German and French because I study German theology/philosophy and because doing the classic modern research language combo is still valued somewhat in academic theology. As has been said, it really depends on what you want to study, but if you were to study, say, theology/phil. of religion in an RS department, Hebrew/Greek most likely wouldn't matter at all (assuming you weren't interested in studying ancient phil. of religion or modern Jewish phil./theology or something like that--and in the case of the latter you'd need modern Hebrew, not biblical.)

The problem though with this kind of anecdotal evidence is that these profs probably attended at a time when admissions to PhD programs simply wasn't as competitive as it is today. There are just way more qualified applicants today than there were 30, 20, or probably even 10 years ago. Even for second tier programs, the competition is very stiff even if not as stiff as Duke, Harvard, etc. Also keep in mind that you don't want to pay for your PhD if you can help it (which you would likely have to do at a second or third tier program.) Some on this board would say that you should under absolutely no circumstances pay for your PhD. I would say that if you've already paid a lot for your undergrad and/or M*, then you should definitely not fork out more for a PhD. But since everyone's situation is different, I think the best rule of thumb is that at the very least, paying should be your absolute last resort, meaning you should give it a couple rounds of application seasons before you consider paying.

A committee will think you're all over the place if it sounds like you're saying "Well I could do this or I could this because this guy is interesting too!" rather than "I want to do A and work with X because her work does a, b, c. Furthermore Y's methodological approach to e, f, g would help me in clarifying A because blah, blah, blah." See the difference? I'll use my SOP for the school I'm now attending as an example (though I'm now doing something only tangentially related to this.) I wrote that I was interested in the epistemologies of biblical hermeneutics and what is at work during the transition from one epistemology to another. I was especially in the transitions between dominant, independent movements in contemporary Christianity (i.e. Free Church movement to the Emergent Church.) My SOP was directed at a theologian in the department interested in biblical hermeneutics and philosophy of religion. But I also mentioned an American religious history expert whom I knew was supervising a project on American evangelicalism and who also had strong interests in theory and method. I then used the above formula to construct something that included both of them.

I agree with sacklunch: apply to both. I don't think a 3.55 MDiv GPA will sink you automatically--but it's definitely on the border. But if you feel like you could move on to a PhD now without the extra degree, then definitely apply and apply to a couple M* programs as a backup plan.

Absolutely mention the "home run" faculty as well as other faculty whose work you think is interesting who you could see offering something unique to your work and potentially sitting on your dissertation committee. Though you don't have to say anything about an actual committee. Adcoms realize you're proposing neither a dissertation committee nor your actual dissertation in the SOP. Also remember that fit between faculty and those they advise is never air tight (nor should it be, I think.) Dissertation committees are not made up of five experts on your very narrow slice of an already narrow field. Who you end up actually working with in the end is going to depend a lot on what sorts of things you want to make absolutely sure you get right in the dissertation. That will likely include people who are only tangentially related to what you do because they can bring a fresh perspective to your work. Thankfully, you don't need to worry about any of that now! So don't stress if faculty in your SOP don't line up precisely with your proposed plan, which might change a bit anyway once you're actually in.

Are you asking if you'd be studying phil. of religion in a theology/RS program? If so, then yes definitely. In fact everyone in an RS program usually has to do some philosophy of religion as part of the foundation of the field (e.g. Kant, Schleiermacher, Feuerbach, Marx, etc.) And if you're studying theology, you'll certainly be able to do some philosophy of religion especially if it's historical.

Hey there. I think you're going to want to look into primarily theology and/or religious studies programs friendly to theology. Even in philosophy departments at Notre Dame or Fordham, for example, you're probably not going to be doing any theology at all (just phil. of religion/science.) Many RS and theology programs, on the other hand, are extremely interdisciplinary, and though you would be officially studying theology (or "religious thought") and would need to probably do at least one comp in theology (in an RS dept., more in a theology dept.), you would also be doing a lot of philosophy, with the opportunity to do a comp in philosophy of science. Based on your brief description though, I'm not really seeing how philosophy of science figures in. If you could say more about that, that could help narrow down the possibilities. A lot of the Catholic school theology departments would probably be a good fit since they're typically very strong in both theology and philosophy. I have a friend at Duquesne currently doing theological anthropology and phil. of science, and he loves it. So Notre Dame, Fordham, BC, etc. are probably worth looking in to. UChicago and PTS are other theology programs that would probably be of interest as well. On the Religious Studies end of things, there are only a handful of schools that have a theology track, and of those, I think Yale and Northwestern are the only ones where you'd really feel free to do the sort of theology you're interested in. Historical projects are much more welcome, generally speaking, in these sorts of departments. At other places like Syracuse, Stanford, Brown, or UNC-Chapel Hill, you might be able to spin your project as something on philosophy of religion or "modern thought and religion," etc. In those cases, programs have tracks named "modern religious thought" or something similar that you'll want to be on the look out for as you research programs. I'm a student at Northwestern, so if you'd like some more info, feel free to send me a PM.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about those questions too much. Divulging that you're married and have kids isn't going to be what keeps you from getting into a program. Adcoms are far more interested in your writing sample, statement of purpose, etc. With regard to the question about the other schools, I think that's mostly so they know what their competition potentially is should they admit you. I don't think it can hinder you either. If a program truly wants you, it's going to be based upon your potential as a scholar which is derived from the application materials, and they're only going to care about the other schools you're applying to insofar as they have to recruit you away from them. I can't imagine an adcom being really excited about you as a candidate but then turned off once they saw you were married with kids or applying to schools X, Y, and Z.

Since German won't be one of your "primary" languages (meaning you're learning German to read secondary scholarship), I would think some combination of 1 and 2 or 3 would be good. Learning languages in any "official" capacity, either through coursework or taking official exams is going to demonstrate to an adcom that you've made significant progress in trying to learn the language.

Possibly one of the best sentences (or asides) I've read [on this forum.] Especially the phrase "bloated bloviations."

I just assumed by "MA" the OP meant M* program, but maybe not?

You're not going to have a problem getting into a top tier div school program coming from UCLA with a good GPA. Those programs are not nearly as competitive as "traditional" M* programs who only admit a handful of students each year. I don't know about Syracuse or BU, but definitely Harvard and Duke probably won't be a problem for you to get into. "Second tier" in religious studies/theology/biblical studies is difficult to identify because there are tons of seminaries all over the US offering M* degrees. Some of them are decent and send people on to good PhD programs, and others... are not. But regardless, do not pay full tuition for a M* degree from a random seminary when you could be getting some scholarship money from Harvard or Duke (or another top tier program.) I'm not in biblical studies, but Emory and Vanderbilt are also places worth checking out.

I agree. The writing is a hair low, but I don't think it will break your application, especially if your actual writing sample is stellar.

Someone will certainly be able to speak to Vandy more specifically, but just broadly speaking, I think you'll be fine. MDiv programs do not require any formal theological/biblical training at all. Given your career interests, I'd recommend the MDiv. You definitely have the practical work (the interfaith stuff) and an interesting and diverse educational background to make you an interesting candidate. Your GPAs are really strong for seminary/div school. Honestly, these sorts of programs are not nearly as competitive as other grad school programs.

I'm not sure if anyone here has actually published through a university press yet, but I'll tell you the little I know. First, speaking strictly of hard academic writing, publishing a serious academic text is never about making money from book sales directly. It's about long term benefits, i.e. building one's reputation, being invited to speak at conferences and/or universities, and possibly winning a prize (e.g. the Grawemeyer Award is $100k). The latter two obviously come later in one's career usually. Publishing through a university press is a much more direct way of achieving these things. Going with a non-university or even worse a non-academic press can potentially pose a huge risk to one's reputation. The bottom line is that uni presses are just taken more seriously, especially if one has a very short or no publishing record. Regarding publishing more popular texts: These are very rarely published by uni presses. I mentioned in another post that there is some debate over whether or not "popular" publishing can harm one's reputation at the beginning of a career. Religion is something that many people are interested in on a popular level (like history, politics, etc.) The difference however between those others and religion is that there is a contentious relationship between the study of religion in "secular academia" and the study of religion "from the inside" so to speak. Sometimes uni presses publish the latter, but only if it is really serious scholarship. I can't imagine a uni press publishing a pop-academia text written from an inside perspective. There are many non-university presses that publish religion texts, both pop and academic. Not all of them are be respected in the academia. Even Wipf & Stock, which publishes many academic theological texts, is not always taken seriously by the secular academy because they're seen as "too inside." The danger in our field of publishing with a non-university, and especially a non-academic press, is that, despite the actual content of the book, it may raise a question in people's minds regarding this insider-outsider distinction. Some might wonder if it is really more of a pop text than a piece of serious academic work. This is by no means a settled issue, and I don't mean to trash someone else's experience or book even. However, having spent five years now studying theology/religion at the graduate level, this has been the common wisdom that I've heard from others.

This has been a live debate before at AAR--whether one is self-destructing one's career by publishing a pop text before a major academic one (or many major academic ones). Though I don't necessarily agree with it in principle, I would err on the side of caution and only include academic publications--and by that, I mean only publications that have been accepted in journals that are more or less widely recognized as reputable (which would include some denominational journals, but definitely not all) or books published by university presses. As diazalon said, committees can tell when one is padding--though what that looks like will probably differ among each committee member. What I mean is that some profs will encourage students in their first year of a PhD to begin publishing and others don't want their advisees publishing anything until exams are passed and dissertation prospectus is approved. That may be a little overkill but the reasoning is that it isn't until then that one has a good enough understanding of the field and one's own project to publish things that won't be embarrassing later. So if you have committee members who assent to the latter way of thinking about publishing, they are most likely going to immediately discount any publication that isn't in a major journal. It is much better to have a "lighter" CV than to have one weighed down with items a committee will find irrelevant.