What I wish I had done in M* - PhD Application Advice

[MarthUser]

On 4/3/2018 at 5:25 PM, JDD said:

All very helpful tips so far. It sounds like my top two interests (American Religious History and Systematic Theology) require very different language prerequisites. I suppose it would be best to start with the standard language requirements in the M.Div program and then tailor further studies to my Ph.D program.

 

@Rabbit Run - do you recommend taking classes at PU because of the networking opportunities or for some reason in particular? I'm interested to know how this would play into PhD applications.

As someone who is doing American Religious History PhD right now (at Princeton University) and went with an MDiv below is some advice:

Use your electives to take more church history courses and if there aren't any, try to do independent research with any church historians at PTS. Most graduates who go onto PhDs in American Religious History do an MA in Church History or bring some other historical studies emphasis in their application. A traditional MDiv would not necessarily handicap you, but you're in a bit of a disadvantage since professors are looking for applicants who can demonstrate strong historical research skills which an MDiv doesn't necessarily prepare you for. On that note, expect/plan to do a ThM/STM on top of your MDiv to strengthen/better demonstrate research skills. 

On the note about research, if you get the option to either take an exam or write a research paper in your classes, opt for the latter.

Look at the Witherspoon Institute which has summer programs for scholars. Some American Religious History folks attend and they have some fellowships that could help you with historical research.

Attend conferences like the ASCH (American Society of Church History), AHA (American Historical Society), and AAR (American Academy of Religion). Familiarize yourself with the questions scholars are asking in the field and who some of the key people you'd want to work with. Note that you can still attend without being a member, or you can be a member, read the journals, and not attend. 

Since you're at PTS, you can cross-register with classes in the Religion Department. Take advantage of this, particularly with the Religion in the Americas professors since they can help you think about your research interests. See if you can meet with folks in the History Department who are also doing something around American Religious History (like Kevin Kruse). 

While it would be good to get published, I wouldn't say it's necessary. Hope this helps!

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by MarthUser

[11Q13]

On 4/7/2018 at 3:50 PM, marXian said:

Dictionary entries and book reviews: There's really very little risk I think in publishing a dictionary entry and definitely very little in publishing a book review. Book reviews written by MA students and early career PhD students are a dime a dozen. No one is scrutinizing the quality of those once they're published. Listing them on your CV is also pretty standard for students/scholars who don't have a peer reviewed publication yet. But once you get one or two of peer reviewed articles under your belt, I think you can take the other stuff off because, frankly, peer reviewed articles and a book contract for your dissertation are the only publication lines that really matter for the job market--i.e. the only publication types that will improve your chances

Actually I think that there is perhaps more risk in writing a book review than about anything else and that graduate students should avoid writing them like the plague. They count for nothing and can only do you harm. There are none of the benefits of peer review or getting familiar with the publishing mechanics and if it's a good, very positive review it will do nothing, which is the best case scenario. If you are critical in your review all that will be accomplished is that you will have made an enemy of a scholar more senior than you, and you will risk coming off as an upstart, which is a major problem for some graduate students. Your time would be better spent reading more books, and even if you do write one, it will probably serve you best to save it for your own reference rather than publication. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by 11Q13

[xypathos]

Critical book reviews tend to not get published, at least within my discipline. As @11Q13 noted, they're something you do to fluff up your C.V. early in your career. Bad books tend to not have reputable reviews which is a tell-tale sign that something is amiss with the work and/or scholar. Also, as 11Q13 noted - the last thing you want to do is piss off someone that could toss some roadblocks your way. Reviews could, in theory, hurt book sales so anything critical tends to not get published as a way for publishers to scratch each other's back. Save critical assessments of a scholar's work for the after hours party at AAR or coffee hour at your school.

[sacklunch]

Generally I agree with you all. I'm not entirely sure how much of a risk you run. If you are in a good program, it should be (I hope) obvious that you don't want to poo poo on someone's monograph. Regardless of whether that's true, the time spent writing a review would be best funneled into your dissertation and/or an article in a peer-reviewed journal. 

 

[marXian]

Well, if anything, I guess this exchange illustrates some of the vast differences that exist among different parts of our discipline. I've heard literally the opposite of what 11Q13 is saying regarding book reviews being a waste of time, especially for an MA student or early PhD student. Definitely wasn't saying the OP or any other MA student should start dunking on senior scholars, but I guess I'm a little surprised that the consensus seems to be "Grad students shouldn't publish book reviews." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯