First, Second, and Third Tier Schools?

[Church Mouse]

I have read a lot of talk about first, second, and third tier schools. How are these distinctions made? I assume that this is entirely subjective but based on a general consensus of the academic community. What criteria do people use to determine the "tier" rating of a school?

I am particularly interested in these schools for a Ph.D. after a Th.M. or S.T.M. (probably at a denominational school). How would these be ranked?

University of Notre Dame--Indiana

Wheaton College Graduate School--Illinois

Dallas Theological Seminary--Texas

Duquesne University--Pennsylvania

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School--Illinois

Moore Theological College--Australia

I am looking for a theologically conservative school with the academic rigor we all want plus an emphasis on spiritual formation that is evangelical, Catholic, or Anglican AND will be respected by the academic community. I know, that is a lot to ask for all in one school. It's that last part that I have trouble gaging. Can you help me out with the whole "tier" and "reputation" thing? It would be much appreciated.

[Postbib Yeshuist]

My understanding is that the "tier" of a school has as much to do with funding and number of slots as anything. For example, one of the places I applied to for PhD was Iliff School of Theology. It's considered second tier, primarily because few if any students receive full funding and they accept a relatively large number of PhD applicants each year. On the other hand, Southern Methodist University, where I ultimately accepted, is trying to become a "Tier 1" school (or so I understand) and they only accepted 6 PhD applicants in Religious Studies and offered full funding + stipend to each of us.

I'm sure that there are other criteria, but more often than not, when I hear a school's tier mentioned, it has to do with what level of funding they're able to offer.

PS I also think that as far as religious studies are concerned, the "tier" is rather informal. "Tier 1" schools are usually the ones with extensive, state & federally-funded research programs in the sciences.

[LateAntique]

I don't think funding is the only or even the primary issue. FSU offered me a full ride with stipend, but that doesn't mean FSU is suddenly a top Religion Program. The top programs are the ones that have the top scholars and are traditionally associated with schools that have an overall prestigious standing in the academy (U of Chicago, Duke, Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard, etc). Their Ph.D students have an easier time securing jobs because they come from those programs and worked under top-ranked scholars. Who writes the books in your field? Who are the movers and shakers at the conferences?

No disrespect to the poster above, but I had never even heard of Illif school of theology until I saw the posts on this board. It probably would not be considered 'second tier'. Likewise, while SMU has a promising program, I don't really see it as a major player.

[Church Mouse]

Criteria for tiers could be funding, admission slots, professor scholars. What else? Yes, I realize that tiers might be less competitive in theology than in other fields. However, if I am to apply to schools in different tiers, it would certainly help to know how schools are ranked. Late Antique mentioned University of Notre Dame as having a top program. Any thoughts on the other schools I mentioned? I'll go check out the University of Chicago. Thanks for the input both of you!

[jacib]

Criteria for tiers could be funding, admission slots, professor scholars. What else? Yes, I realize that tiers might be less competitive in theology than in other fields. However, if I am to apply to schools in different tiers, it would certainly help to know how schools are ranked. Late Antique mentioned University of Notre Dame as having a top program. Any thoughts on the other schools I mentioned? I'll go check out the University of Chicago. Thanks for the input both of you!

It really depends on what you want to do with it later. Places like Dallas and Wheaton mean a lot if you want to work in similar communities, and don't mean so much if you want to work in a secular institution.

The best way to find out is to email the head of graduate studies and ask them where their graduating PhD/ThDs have placed for the last five or ten years. See if you can get a list of ALL of them, not just the cherry picked best ones. Or, if you know exactly who you want to work with, see if you can get a list of their graduating students (though asking a specific professor is more personal and I would wait until after you get accepted). Once you have the list ask yourself: are these the kind of places I want to be? Tier means most in terms of placement for your first job, I would say. Another thing you can do is reverse engineer it. Think of the kinds of job you want, and then check: where did those people get their PhDs.

On the sociology boards people are much more into numbers, and people tried to come up with ranking systems based on various factors. See The most interesting one was taking all the "top institutions" and seeing where those people got their PhDs from. I personally disagree with the last methodology up their (I'd do it the opposite way; who sends their people to the best schools, not who has taken people from the best schools), but either way it shows you there are many ways to look at it.

[Church Mouse]

It really depends on what you want to do with it later. Places like Dallas and Wheaton mean a lot if you want to work in similar communities, and don't mean so much if you want to work in a secular institution.

The best way to find out is to email the head of graduate studies and ask them where their graduating PhD/ThDs have placed for the last five or ten years. See if you can get a list of ALL of them, not just the cherry picked best ones. Or, if you know exactly who you want to work with, see if you can get a list of their graduating students (though asking a specific professor is more personal and I would wait until after you get accepted). Once you have the list ask yourself: are these the kind of places I want to be? Tier means most in terms of placement for your first job, I would say. Another thing you can do is reverse engineer it. Think of the kinds of job you want, and then check: where did those people get their PhDs.

On the sociology boards people are much more into numbers, and people tried to come up with ranking systems based on various factors. See The most interesting one was taking all the "top institutions" and seeing where those people got their PhDs from. I personally disagree with the last methodology up their (I'd do it the opposite way; who sends their people to the best schools, not who has taken people from the best schools), but either way it shows you there are many ways to look at it.

I have looked at where professors have earned their degrees. That does help. A professor friend of mine at my church said the same thing about Dallas. All my favorite profs at my seminary were from Dallas, so I already like the product. But, I would like some versitility in my job prospects. I didn't think of getting a list of where graduates have gone from either the dean or my prof of choice. I will keep that in mind. Lots to think about and little time to do it in. Thanks for all the help!

[Postbib Yeshuist]

I don't think funding is the only or even the primary issue. FSU offered me a full ride with stipend, but that doesn't mean FSU is suddenly a top Religion Program. The top programs are the ones that have the top scholars and are traditionally associated with schools that have an overall prestigious standing in the academy (U of Chicago, Duke, Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard, etc). Their Ph.D students have an easier time securing jobs because they come from those programs and worked under top-ranked scholars. Who writes the books in your field? Who are the movers and shakers at the conferences?

No disrespect to the poster above, but I had never even heard of Illif school of theology until I saw the posts on this board. It probably would not be considered 'second tier'. Likewise, while SMU has a promising program, I don't really see it as a major player.

I think you misread my post a bit. I said funding has "as much to do" with finances and slots as anything. It's certainly not the only thing, but it's a factor to be sure. Faculty reputation counts, but that appears to be evening out (for example, Catherine Keller is at Drew University, Kwok Pui-Lan is at EDS, Tat-Siong Benny-Liew is at PSR, Carl Raschke at Iliff, etc (granted, their PhD's are from Tier 1 schools, lol)]. One of the important trends that seems to be occurring right now is that students are following names of professors more and more and not exactly worrying about the school's pedigree, since no school covers all the bases well. In fact, there even appears to be somewhat of a backlash against the Ivies at the moment for what some consider to be "establishment" approaches to theology.

Still, in the end, I think the whole "tier" system is kind of on its way out (thank goodness). People will obviously always think highly of the "Top 10" schools, but there seems to be a growing realization that who you study with is more important than where you studied. In all likelihood, the only tier that really has any meaning at all is "1," and the students at Oxford and Cambridge probably even laugh at that.

PS I did not mean to imply that the religion program at SMU was Tier 1, merely that SMU as an institution appears to making attempts to reach "Tier 1 status," at least in TX (which also raises the important point that "tier" has a regional element as well).

Edited June 9, 2010 by Postbib Yeshuist

[Church Mouse]

PS I did not mean to imply that the religion program at SMU was Tier 1, merely that SMU as an institution appears to making attempts to reach "Tier 1 status," at least in TX (which also raises the important point that "tier" has a regional element as well).

Please tell me what you mean about the "regional element" of the tiering of schools.

[Postbib Yeshuist]

Please tell me what you mean about the "regional element" of the tiering of schools.

Well, for example, the University of Texas (Austin) is considered a Tier 1 school by the state, but the questions is whether someone at Harvard at Yale would have that same perspective (and this is more with respect to the sciences than religion). Again, this all returns to the fact that "Tier 1" is really an almost meaningless concept. Even those who refer to it don't entirely know what it means. There's not a national body (that I know of) that assigns such a status, and someone in Austin could care less whether a student at Yale thinks UT is Tier 2. (This article gives a helpful perspective on the whole "Tier 1" concept: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/030809dntextierone.3ab7a09.html). In the end, Tier 1, 2 or 3 really doesn't much matter in my opinion. The thing is to pick the best school you can get into, provided the professors that are best for your particular interests are there. I went to SMU because, for me, it was a far better choice than, say, Yale or Harvard. In fact, I didn't even apply to those because they just didn't have what I needed. Sure, my job prospects are automatically lower now, but in the end, the people I wanted to work with most (aside from Drew University) were at SMU (and semi-nearby Baylor University).

PS To return to your original question, I know ND will be respected, but I'm not so sure about DTS. The others I don't really know much about. Still, I'm over on the liberal end of the spectrum, so it may be that they would all be fine when looking for jobs at conservative places, but it won't have the "universal" appeal that a degree from ND might. (ND begin the only "Tier 1" school in your list that I'm aware of). The rule of thumb if that you're rarely able to get a job at a school that's "better" than where you did your PhD.

[braun_braun]

I wouldn't say a 1st tier school is only about funding but that plays a huge role: it is also about a big research institution with top scholars, with a huge library not only in religion/theology but in humanities and all the other areas so interdisciplinary work can be easily carried out. It is about giving you the freedom to focus on your research and it is about funding you extensively when you go to deliver a conference or a paper.It is also about intelectual freedom with no pregiven religious agenda. My experience is that it is not only about those top scholars (obviously they play a huge role, or the name of the school, but also about the intellectual environment that surrounds them and the material oportunities you get: only research institutions can offer that. You know: yale, chicago, harvard, emory, vanderbilt, duke, notre dame....

[JonathanEdwards]

I have read a lot of talk about first, second, and third tier schools. How are these distinctions made? I assume that this is entirely subjective but based on a general consensus of the academic community. What criteria do people use to determine the "tier" rating of a school?

I am particularly interested in these schools for a Ph.D. after a Th.M. or S.T.M. (probably at a denominational school). How would these be ranked?

University of Notre Dame--Indiana

Wheaton College Graduate School--Illinois

Dallas Theological Seminary--Texas

Duquesne University--Pennsylvania

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School--Illinois

Moore Theological College--Australia

I am looking for a theologically conservative school with the academic rigor we all want plus an emphasis on spiritual formation that is evangelical, Catholic, or Anglican AND will be respected by the academic community. I know, that is a lot to ask for all in one school. It's that last part that I have trouble gaging. Can you help me out with the whole "tier" and "reputation" thing? It would be much appreciated.

Because magazines and newspapers have popularised this terminology (‘league tables’ in the UK, ‘tiers’ in the US), that tends to be how potential students frame the discussion as well. However, something to bear in mind is that university strengths can vary depending on what subfield one is looking at. For example, a university can have the top program in church history, but not so in theological studies. Even within say, church history, scholars will know which universities have strengths in different periods.

Church Mouse, I’d encourage you to talk about your research interests to your current faculty and ask them where you’d find the best supervision for that. The answers will usually involve what most people would consider the ‘top tier schools,’ but may include a few surprises. Once you get into that level of subjectivity and specificity, you’re not going to be able to find published ‘tier’ rankings, but I’d suggest the advice will likely be considerably more valuable.

[Postbib Yeshuist]

It's also worth adding that it's rare to move "up" the academic ladder school-wise. For most people, the rule of thumb is that you teach at the same level or lower as the place where you got a PhD. Yale grads can teach almost anywhere. Drew grads can teach at Drew and "lower," but will have a harder time teaching at Yale. etc, etc, etc. Of course, nothing is impossible, but the reality is that, aside from some amazing publication or a really critical area of research (i.e. NOT church history), where you graduated from is the type of school (at best) where you can expect to teach.

[jacib]

I wouldn't say a 1st tier school is only about funding but that plays a huge role: it is also about a big research institution with top scholars, with a huge library not only in religion/theology but in humanities and all the other areas so interdisciplinary work can be easily carried out. It is about giving you the freedom to focus on your research and it is about funding you extensively when you go to deliver a conference or a paper.It is also about intelectual freedom with no pregiven religious agenda. My experience is that it is not only about those top scholars (obviously they play a huge role, or the name of the school, but also about the intellectual environment that surrounds them and the material oportunities you get: only research institutions can offer that. You know: yale, chicago, harvard, emory, vanderbilt, duke, notre dame....

I think some combination of the last three responses nails it. You need to a. figure out exactly what you're interested b. think of where you want to work in 5 to 9 years and beyond c. figure out what's good in what you're interested in. For example, in Buddhism, Wisconsin and Virginia are both really, really good (better than Chicago, in all likelihood, because I think Chicago just might have Christian Wedemeyer... on the other hand, for Hinduism, Chicago is considered the shit because of Wendy Doeniger and someone on every search committee, even those who know nothing about Hinduism, will likely know her name. Her students are everywhere) and people in the field ought to know that....but that said, also remember that, let's say you study Buddhism or some other obscure field, people on the search committee might not know it as well as a Buddhodolgist would. In those situations, it will not just be the name of your adviser but also the name on your degree, the names of the other people on your thesis committee (at my PhD program, we just had a talk last week about picking a diverse thesis committee because those people will help write letters and get you a job, even if they're not from your subfield.... and not every search committee will have people from your subfield).

Additionally, I think it is generally difficult to move from a stand-alone religious seminary to a highly respected university or non-denominational college. I'm sure it's been done, I'm sure people can come up with a few famous examples easily, but a degree from Dallas (which has HUGE respect) and a degree from Notre Dame (which also has HUGE respect) are going to take you very different places. They're both at or near the top of their respective worlds, but they're very different worlds, and only you can really know which one you want to be in.

Edited September 18, 2010 by jacib

[JonathanEdwards]

aside from some amazing publication or a really critical area of research (i.e. NOT church history), where you graduated from is the type of school (at best) where you can expect to teach.

Unless of course the position one is applying for is in ecclesiastical history... in which case the hiring panel will likely find it a rather critical area. Just having fun - cheers!

[Jeffrey Richards]

A Drew PhD is a professor on the Harvard Divinity School faculty. So much for ranking. Another taught doctoral students at Peking University, a top twenty university.

[xypathos]

On 9/2/2020 at 7:26 AM, Jeffrey Richards said:

A Drew PhD is a professor on the Harvard Divinity School faculty. So much for ranking. Another taught doctoral students at Peking University, a top twenty university.

Rivera didn't go to HDS directly from Drew though, which is important to note. The prestige of your school (more so your specific faculty) is helpful in getting your first appointment but the more you're removed from that, it's on you.

The fact is though the vast majority of Drew graduates languish on the job market at lower end schools, cobbling together adjunct work until, hopefully, they land a TT-eligible position some number of years down the road. This isn't a problem specific to Drew though, it's everyone - even schools like Yale and Harvard have graduates going onto second and third rate schools b/c that's all that is available with the market the way it is. With RS/theology degrees at a large number of schools taking 7+ years to do, departments downsizing, etc it will only get worse.

Anyway, ranking schools in such a diverse and interdisciplinary field like Religious Studies (inc. of theology) is just plain stupid. That said, I have contemplated a consolidated directory of programs and an easy enough sorting list based on broad faculty expertise that could be updated within seconds. I know from my own application time that there were schools I missed with solid 1-2 faculty simply because I didn't know the school had a graduate program in RS or related field.

[PBenjy]

In one sense, "first tier" can be entirely subjective—just as you mentioned in your post and as some people have commented above. If you are a Baptist and plan to teach at a Baptist seminary one day, then your fellow Baptists will likely have their own criteria for a "first tier" school. In a second sense, if you have scholarly aspirations to work within a very specific sub-field, then "first tier" will mean working with the right experts in your field; the school name won't matter as much as the scholars you've worked with and the kind of research you're capable of. But there is also a third sense (which I think is what people typically mean): schools that are "first tier" are historically reputable as top research institutions (regardless of discipline). Out of all the universities you listed, only Notre Dame is first tier in the third sense. I think it's fair to say, in this third sense, that all you need to do is google "university rankings" and see which ones consistently show up in the top 30 or so places. Unfortunately, there won't be any seminaries that are on that list. Princeton Theological Seminary is probably the closest you can get!

I saw that you listed a school in Australia. If you are considering schools outside of the United States, that is another issue entirely. You will find other posts here on Grad Cafe that can help explain some of the differences between US and UK degrees, for example, but I would encourage you to research that more! Since your interest is in "theologically conservative" schools, you should also check out Fuller Theological Seminary. I personally think that would be a better option than DTS, Trinity, or Wheaton. 

After you determine what sense of "first tier" you are most interested in, then that should help you to weed out the options. But as far as your methodology question, you can see from this wiki page how complicated it can get when ranking universities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings. I do agree with some comments above that you can generally follow the money trail... The schools with the biggest endowments are usually able to attract the best scholars and can afford to have the best and most competitive programs. But again, it all depends on what "sense" you mean when you define "first tier." 

Edited September 4, 2020 by PBenjy

[PBenjy]

I didn't even look and just realized that this post was from 2010. I should probably check the original post date before replying and attempting to be helpful next time! ??

[xypathos]

6 hours ago, PBenjy said:

I didn't even look and just realized that this post was from 2010. I should probably check the original post date before replying and attempting to be helpful next time! ??

I noticed even before replying but it's something that comes up every year, so I think it's useful to have it closer to the top. That's to say that your advice is useful so don't feel bad!