Religion PhD - Results Page

[deus_absconditus]

Has anyone out there applied to and/or heard from the following programs: Emory, Syracuse, Yale Divinity School's S.T.M.

[Revolage]

It's funny. When I was rejected from the Div. School last year, one of my letter-writers said that he wonders if I would have liked it anyway. He said it's where fun goes to die, and that the Univ. of Chicago can be a cold place to study. I've also heard that there's not a lot of collegiality and that - as we've all heard - it can take forever to get a PhD there. It's odd that foureyes said some similar things.

For those who are more familiar with it (e.g., philmajor): what are your impressions? What is the basis for such consistent rumors?

[foureyes]

deus_absconditus -

There were actually a couple of things that bothered me about UofChicago. My husband and I visited together (he is also in Religious Studies.) He met with one of the professors with whom he'd be working -- during this meeting the professor said that he only met with his graduate students once a month in a group where they all "shared" what they were doing. He rarely met with students one-on-one. Of course, this is only one professor, but I didn't really feel comfortable with this set up.

I also talked to the Dean of Admissions, and during our meeting, she mentioned a couple of things that turned me off. First, at the Masters level, one does not "choose" their faculty advisor. She said that they try to match you up with someone they think matches your interests -- you can express who you'd like to work with, but it's not a guaranteed match, she said. This was troubling to me.

The second thing that bothered me during our meeting was that, when I asked for their Ph.D. job placement record, she didn't have any hard numbers. She said they were in the process of trying to collect such things, and that she thinks the majority of the candidates do well, but she didn't have a list to show me. The Religious Studies Department that I'm currently in has expressed some concern with the quality of Chicago's recent Ph.D. graduates. One professor at my institution told me that, when looking at new Ph.D.'s to hire for positions, they have been less than impressed with the quality Chicago's Ph.D. grads (at least in my subfield). It seems that, because the place is such a massive Ph.D. factory, there may be very little attention to the crafting of the dissertation. Of course, this will largely depend on the student's advisor. But still, I was really uncomfortable with all of this.

Finally, the Dean told me that their own M.A. students have the greatest probability of getting into their Ph.D. Program. However, funding for the masters is rarely provided (though sometimes it is -- which is why I was disappointed today when I was given the "standard 50% reduction for tuition.") This was frustrating to me. I have to pay $60,000 for a masters from their institution in order to get into their Ph.D. program? I think not. I've been accepted to other schools that are funding me fully for the MA/Ph.D. from the start. It all just seems like a scam for a less than stellar education (at least in my subfield, like I've said.)

I'm worried about places like Chicago and Harvard, which basically "funnel" their students from their own Masters / M.Div. programs and get their money from these students to fund their Ph.D.'s. Sigh....it seems sometimes like choosing the "best" Religious Studies program is really like choosing the least bad program.

[cmmimg]

That was a really intense post. In my search for non-MDiv masters programs in religion a few years ago I generally found that most schools, particularly those attached to a university, did not give much funding. This was part of why I felt so lucky to end up where I did and get a full plus stipend award, though this is by no means for all the masters students here. Most programs fund their MDiv students much better than MA or MTS. Chicago is a prime example. I was told point blank by my undergraduate advisor that if I wanted to go to Chicago for the masters I should go as an MDiv so I could actually get funding, even if it did mean additional requirements. I'm just wondering why you applied there to begin with, seeing as you seem to have great reservations about it now. I almost applied to a few more places two years back, but then I reasoned that if I got in I wouldn't go there regardless and would just take someone's spot in the first round and make them have to wait forever to find out. So what was it about Chicago that you did like? Obviously there was something since you applied there? Was it just reputation, though you cut that down pretty well in your post, so it can't be that... I really am curious about perceptions of Chicago.

[Philmajor]

Foureyes,

Very interesting post with some valid points and some points that just don't make sense to me. I'm a current MA student and I picked my own advisor. Nobody appointed an advisor - he was the person I most wanted to work with so I just attended offce hours. Secondly, ALL professors have office hours - it's part of being a professor. Somehow I think there was a miscommunication. As for the placement of PhD candidates I never asked to see a hard copy of the numbers but I think that depends greatly on the student and the student's interests. I'm not really impressed with schools that say they place their PhD's into the top 10 universities - that seems a bit of stretch. The school does give their own a greater chance which if you think about it makes sense. The current students have already proven themselves. Their writing samples have already been read and commented on by professors and they are submitted in that format. Outside students have the opportunity to take their writing sample and revise it numerous times. The MA students have already completed 1 year towards their PhD which means they could finish within 3-4 years (probably more like 4+). Keep in mind, they don't accept ALL of the MA's that apply.

It's too bad you didn't withdrawn your application though. Divinity only makes one round of offers; they don't have a waiting list or rounds of offers.

I wish you well and hope that the program you decide to attend fits your needs.

[foureyes]

Philmajor -

I understand what you are saying. I was only reporting my own experience, however incomplete this is. Please forgive me if it is inaccurate.

WIth regard to my husband's meeting with the faculty member who said he did not meet with his students regularly -- that's exactly what he said. He does not meet with his Ph.D. students regularly, but gets together with them in a group. I'm sure with other faculty advisors, it's much different. (If I'm a student there -- I'll be knocking on my advisor's door every week.)

As far as faculty advisors go -- the Dean of Admissions did tell me that the advisors were more or less matched, but our choice could "not be guaranteed." If I could venture a guess, I think that she said this because some students might come in thinking they want to work with Nussbaum or Marion -- who are understandably busy. She probably didn't want to give us any misconceptions about who we would / could work with. It probably isn't a problem if you're working with someone less busy or (dare I say) famous. Also, I understand what you are saying about knowing their own students better in the Ph.D. admissions process. Still, then, I wonder why they don't just choose fewer masters students and fund them from the start (a combined M.A./Ph.D. program).

Regarding Ph.D. placement --- Before my meeting with the Chicago's Dean of Admissions, I had come from UVa. Now, UVa did not say that they placed their students into top 10 universities, prestigious positions, etc. But they DID show me a spreadsheet that showed exactly where all their students were and what jobs they received (or if they received one), stretching back for the past several years. Chicago could not furnish anything of the sort. I'm not sure what this means, but having the UVa's stat sheet in hand, I was disappointed with Chicago's inability to do this.

Finally, I did not want to withdraw my application. I would be okay attending this institution and could look past this if I were funded there. There are a lot of fantastic scholars there that I'd love to learn from, understanding that a lot of my work would be independent. My problem is not with the faculty as much as the procedural aspects of the program. Also, when I applied, I had no idea where or if I was getting in anywhere else -- making Chicago a viable option. I don't think it's "too bad" I didn't withdraw my application -- that is entirely my decision.

[bah]

Just to throw in my two cents...

Much of what has been said here about Chicago is partly true. The AM program is over-populated, alienating, and competitive, and many unwitting students pay $60,000 for a mediocre training and very little guidance on what to do afterward. Professors tend to scout for the students they want and others just fall through the cracks and end up with little to show for their efforts or cash. There are also major problems with faculty absenteeism. Several of them live across the world and fly in to teach classes now and then. A lot of people come to Chicago thinking they're going to cozy up to Marion or Nussbaum and end up cooling off in the back of lecture halls hoping that these people so much as remember their names come the end of the quarter. There's a distinctly merciless quality about the place. You don't go to office hours just to chat. These people are insanely busy and if you want to be mentored you better impress them during your five minutes of face time.

I think the quality of the PhDs varies greatly depending upon advisers. Some faculty are distant and not especially inspiring as teachers. Others are widely known as highly involved mentors who regularly churn out some of the best equipped scholars in the field (Lincoln, Schweiker, Doniger, Tanner). It would certainly be possible to fall through the cracks at UC, but it's also one of the most diverse and intriguing intellectual hotspots on the planet, and it's equally possible to get an unmatched training if you have the patience and the tenacity to get people interested in your work. But again, the general criticism that it can be a cold place is without doubt true. Not many people at Chicago qualify as 'happy', there are far too many students who feel neglected, and there's probably too much emphasis on taking classes with famous names and too little emphasis their ability to teach. Some, of course, are very good teachers, but brilliant scholarship does not a pedagogue make.

As for spending half your life in grad school, this is basically finished. The new funding initiative (around 19 for 5 years) should ensure that everyone is in and out as quickly as at comparable programs, and it should also take the edge off some of the misery and competition, though not at the master's level.

[thatindividual]

Thanks for the interesting discussion everyone.

For what its worth I too heard back from Chicago Divinity today (3/13) and got partial funding (half tuition).

[deus_absconditus]

thatindividual hit the nail on the head: that was an interesting discussion! insightful and informative as well. any other "i" words i can use?

as an aside, foureyes, if you and your husband are doing phds, you all must have some serious brainpower and determination! godspeed.

[Revolage]

Thatindividual: Congratulations! Which program did you get accepted into? And what's with this half-tuition thing? Is that only for master's level students?

[thatindividual]

I got accepted into the A.M. program. I want to study philosophy of religion. Chicago Divinity is actually the only divinity/seminary school I applied to. I applied there because of the intellectual climate (which put me at ease as I am not a theist) and because I've constantly had one of my professors in my ear telling me I should go to Chicago since I was a sophomore (he is an alum). I applied to philosophy programs for my other 10 schools (many of them with religious affiliations of some sort). I want to study philosophy of religion and continental philosophy (existentialism primarily), and to a lesser degree, skepticism and epistemology. I am thrilled to get into such a prestigious institution though I must admit the promise of only getting half funding is quite the tease.

Oh and about half-tuition, If I understood the website correctly they do provide full-tuition awards in addition to fellowships. Unfortunately I guess I don't show that much "promise" . Oh well. I could have misunderstood the website as well.

[Philmajor]

thatindividual - Congratulations! That is great news and I'm sure you are thrilled. You're correct to assume that some students get a full scholarship (1 or 2) and some get 1/2 scholarship.

I received notification via postal today that I was waitlisted for the PhD program (I'm an internal applicant) :cry:

I was told that they don't waitlist. Offers are made and that's that. I know financial issues have plagued the entire graduate program this year but it seems to be rectified - perhaps that is why they went to a waitlist this year? This leaves me in limbo as Chicago was the only place I applied to this year.

Not sure what to do; except pray that lots of people turn down their offers quickly - I don't want to wait until the end of April to know what I'm doing in the fall.

[tiredofrejection]

I applied and visited UC two years ago and felt similar to many of you. It just seemed cold and uninviting. The prof I wanted to work with wasn't around because they were travelling, which I got the sense is common. I also had a cousin who got a PhD in anthropology at UC. It took him 10 years and he knew many a divinity student who took nearly as long.

My masters advisor was also a UC grad, and when I raised these concerns to him, he said things have been changing but he would not go so far as to say it is gone. That was two years ago though, so if efforts were being put in place then, it would make sense that current students are saying that long programs are a thing of the past.

In my opinion though, UC's lofty reputation goes back to the previous generation of scholars, not the current professorate. For ethics in particular, I'm talking about Gustafson. Don't get me wrong. Tracey and the rest are excellent scholars (I can only hope to be as sucessful someday), but they are not in the league of Gustafson in terms of overall influence in the field and in terms of mentoring the next generation of scholars.

[Revolage]

Philmajor: congrats on the wait-list. Even though it's semi-positive news, I can imagine that it's driving you absolutely batty knowing that you may have to wait another month or so before this thing is settled.

What area of study did you apply to again? Since they normally don't wait-list, maybe you're the *only* person in a holding pattern, and one rejection from someone else will do the trick.

[foureyes]

Congratulations to everyone who heard from UofChicago today. Philmajor -- I hope someone turns down UofChicago's Ph.D. program and you get in.

Thanks for all the perspectives. This board is so informative; it feels really relieving to find a place where everyone's in pretty much the same boat!

thatindividual - about the partial funding thing -- it IS a tease! I'm no wunderkind, so I got squat, as well.

tiredofrejection - totally hear what you're saying. You're right - there aren't anymore Gustafsons or Niebuhrs. Of course, we are their legacy, if you want to look at it that way. I guess one could go to UVa and work with Childress (Gustafson's student)? Or maybe Schweiker at Chicago (also Gustafson's student) or maybe Miller at IU Bloomington (another of Gustafson's *and* Childress's students.) Not the same though - not by a long shot.

[Stud. Theol.]

I had asked some time ago whether I should consider partial funding a tease. I am torn; if they offer it they must do it because it makes the program viable for people, or some people.

I've been thinking about it and there's really no way I'm going to turn down CGU and try again. I'm either doing this or not doing anything... academically speaking.

Is it stupid to go for it with only partial funding?

[bah]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is yes, it's not a good idea to do a PhD half-tuition. You're going to work yourself into heavy debt with no promise of work at the end of the tunnel. Also, it's simply unnecessary. There are many programs out there that are not 'top tier' but which are still excellent and which fund fairly well, e.g. Loyola. I'm not sure precisely what your interests or situation, but the rule of thumb is that you just don't do doctoral work unless you're funded.

[foureyes]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is yes, it's not a good idea to do a PhD half-tuition. You're going to work yourself into heavy debt with no promise of work at the end of the tunnel. Also, it's simply unnecessary. There are many programs out there that are not 'top tier' but which are still excellent and which fund fairly well, e.g. Loyola. I'm not sure precisely what your interests or situation, but the rule of thumb is that you just don't do doctoral work unless you're funded.

Hear, hear! However, I'm curious, Stud. Theol., why it's CGU or nothing..."'academically speaking"? Maybe you've explained this in other posts - but are you aiming to be an academic or something else? And also, is this your first year applying to places, or have you gone through all this stuff before? (If you have, I can see why you'd be frustrated, not wanting to go through it again.)

I don't think I'd go to a program unless they funded me, because the job market afterward is so uncertain. I can't imagine carrying tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and only getting paid $30,000 or so a year to work 60+ hours a week at a job that had few benefits, little stability, and can carry a lot of emotional and familial strain. I think, if one really wants to be in academia, the wait is worth it in order to get funding. However, it's your decision -- do what you feel comfortable with.

[Stud. Theol.]

Yes, I have gone through the application cycle before... and been spit out.

I think that given my interests CGU is really the ideal program for me. There are a couple of faculty members there who really understand my interests and having a few in one place is like gold given that it seemed to me that they were few and far between when I was throwing out lines.

I also happen to think its a very good program and can't imagine that I'd do much better. I am quite capable but I come from an evangelical background and, given that single kiss of death, only the outright geniuses have a chance of rising much higher.

There is also a good chance that my housing will be free. So I figure I'll be saving a lot there. Plus my wife will work and I can work a bit too. So it will come down to about $30k for the first 2 years and then the price becomes rather minimal after that.

That's no small amount but I had been paying on about that much debt from my undergrad for the last 10 years and it ends up being about $200 a month. I almost have that paid off. If I had to do that again, it's not a killer. It won't be easy since I'll be earning less than I do now, but a lot of people pay that much in credit card bills each month.

I guess I could wait it out and insist on something better but in all likelihood, I'll never see it.

[bah]

At the risk of being a bit blunt, that's a little meshugah. You're telling me that you'd rather go into serious longterm debt just to have 1-2 profs who seem to get your interests than apply to programs that will fund you and do a bit of independent work outside your adviser's ken? There's no 'ideal' program. Most programs are fairly flexible and your interests will almost certainly change as you go forward (especially given what your interests are, see below). At the end of the day, you have to do what you think is right. But I wouldn't take that offer if you paid me.

Again, to be a bit blunt, only because it might help you, I think you have serious problems with your interests. There's a reason, in other words, that every professor you try to articulate your interests to looks at you like you have two heads, and it's not just that they're not interested in what you're trying to do.

For one thing, the idea that we can construct a systematic worldview out of the Bible is hardly new or controversial. In fact, it's a field: systematic theology. Every systematic theologian from Aquinas down to Barth and beyond has been trying to do just this.

The second part, the analytic philosophy, is where things get weird. If your interests are going to be appealing at all you'll have to make a case for how analytic philosophy in particular can shed light on systematic theology. This would, to put it mildly, be rather difficult. Systematic theology's task is to articulate and order the meaning of a sacred text and/or tradition and this is highly complicated -- it requires a number of methods from philology to history to analytic argumentation. Of course, analytic philosophy might offer resources for certain aspects of the task but it's hard to see how it especially offers the key to it.

In general, you have a problem: analytic philosophy of religion tends to be done in philosophy departments and not in religion departments, and there are fairly good reasons for this. Analytic philosophers worry about logical arguments and pay very little attention to Biblical texts or traditions. People who spend their time reading the Biblical text recognize that what's happening is far more nuanced, complex, and many-sided than a simple logical argument (What can analytic philosophy tell us about the meaning of the Song of Songs?). And so the two worlds don't talk much to one another or find one another terribly relevant. I'm sure there are fruitful ways that one could apply analytic philosophy to theology, but saying how is probably harder than it seems.

If I were in your position I would start reading widely in both systematic theology and analytic philosophy of religion. This would allow you to get a sense of how systematics usually proceeds as well as to begin to think seriously about what analytic philosophy has to offer it, if anything. I think reading in systematics would be especially important for you since it will give you a better idea of what it might mean to come up with a coherent Biblical worldview. You can start with the Summa and then move on to Calvin's Institutes and finish up with the 14 volumes of Barth's Dogmatics.

Basically, if I were you, I would try to get a lot clearer about my interests and then reapply to programs that are appropriate to them. I realize this is a hard thing to swallow when you've got a bunch of mouths to feed and when you've already been down this road once before. But you might ask yourself if it's worth it to take one more year if it means you might actually be funded. As it stands now, I think you're probably coming off to mainstream religious studies programs as a fundamentalist.

[religionstudent]

I'm actually very happy I was rejected from U of C. It was last on my list of nine schools that I applied to anyway. I know from a professor at a university who is ABD at Chicago, he is in his 13th year and will be defending this year. I also know one student who graduated in five years and people see this as an amazing feat, because no one graduates from Chicago in five years! It seems 10 years is not unusual for students to graduate in...Chicago is for a certain kind of person, I for one am not that kind of person, but if you are, then great, you might love the school!

I am proudly going to UNC for my PhD, which is providing generous funding and where professors make a point to welcome students into the program and to ensure that students are happy and receive attention during their five years. I also received offers from Duke, Michigan, Toronto and Emory, but am going to UNC because apart from strong academics, I know the professors really care about their students and everyone I met there is actually happy.

[tiredofrejection]

tiredofrejection - totally hear what you're saying. You're right - there aren't anymore Gustafsons or Niebuhrs. Of course, we are their legacy, if you want to look at it that way. I guess one could go to UVa and work with Childress (Gustafson's student)? Or maybe Schweiker at Chicago (also Gustafson's student) or maybe Miller at IU Bloomington (another of Gustafson's *and* Childress's students.) Not the same though - not by a long shot.

I think there are people today who loom as large as Gustafson & Neihbur. I would include Hawerwas (another Gustafson student) and probabaly Lisa Cahill in that group, not to mention the liberation theologian types like Gustavo Guti

[sarah4153]

As interesting as all of this info about the University of Chicago is (I didn't apply there ), I'm still waiting to hear from UCSB and UVA. I've seen results on the board for both lately. I'm waiting for funding information from Rice.

[rastaman]

As interesting as all of this info about the University of Chicago is (I didn't apply there ), I'm still waiting to hear from UCSB and UVA. I've seen results on the board for both lately. I'm waiting for funding information from Rice.

Sarah4153____ I got into Rice but I am turning it down so I hope that means you get the $15,900 stipend they offered me.All the best.

[tingbaring]

Does anyone have thoughts on Vanderbilt's Theology program? It seems quite a bit weaker now than when McFague was there. Is it still a "top tier" school?