Hindsight Views

[TheologyGrad]

Hi everyone. I can't sleep and I stumbled on this page and have spent some time reading through many, many discussions here. It recalled my times of going through applications. I finished my Ph.D. 3 years ago. Maybe sharing some of my experience can be helpful.

I did my BA in philosophy at a good school that was not nationally recognized, but has a good reputation and is generally known as a school where grade inflation has not been happening. I had a 3.3, which was very high there, good references from professors who hadn't published anything, and had myself actually published a book chapter (in a university press-published book) as an undergraduate.

I applied to MDiv's at Princeton Theological, Harvard, Union, Berkeley, Drew, and Chicago.

I was accepted to Drew with full funding, Union and Chicago with partial funding.

While in my MDiv I did very well, also at an institution that is not known for grade inflation, and had around a 3.7.

I applied to the Ph.D. in the same program as the MDiv where I was enrolled. I met with all the professors in the program, was active with the social and academic life of the theological school, and developed a good relationship with the advisor whom I had identified my intentions with. I applied nowhere else, based on my confidence of my acceptance, and much to my disappointment I was rejected. Some of my classmates who, I believed, had lesser GPAs or were less qualified were accepted. I was very angry.

But I found work very quickly in a church and agreed to a one year deal for employment, and also began teaching. I talked to some trusted professors. My former advisor, who had agreed to be my doctoral advisor, told me to apply again and that the competition was espcially tough that year. Another professor offered to buy me lunch and she was very honest--the problem was that there are good schools and better schools in religion and theology. The strength of an individual Ph.D. is in the subfields, connections with professors, and institutional ability to thrive. She felt that my particular interests would be better served eslewhere, and suggested a school I had not considered before, and specifically thought of one professor who I had really neglected to consider working with. And she said that this particular school's job placement was far better than where I was and some other elite schools. But she did encourage me to try again there.

So, the second time around I took it seriously. I took the GREs again and did very well. I really did kick-ass applications. I worked my teaching and pastoral experience into my narratives. I made contact with professors before I applied. I decided not to apply to a few based on conversations and email exchanges with professors, documented all of this, and even mentioned some of these conversations in the appliactions that I did make, in the section where you answer the question, "why here?"

I applied to Villanova (Philosophy), Emory, Drew, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton Theological, Pitt, Lutheran Theological Chicago, FSU, Iliff/Denver, Loyola Chicago (Philosophy), Garrett/Northwestern, DePaul (Philosophy), and two MA Programs. I was accepted without funding to both MA programs; and four of the above Ph.D. programs, with tuition varying from quarter tuition to full tuition plus stipend. I was additionally admitted into the MA with partial funding into one of the philosophy departments where I had made initial application to the Ph.D., with the option of being able to transfer into the Ph.D. in a different manner than was typical at the school. I was turned down again by my alma mater. The program my former professor had suggested before gave me 75% tuition, and I called their admissions office and they said to fax them letters with my better offers, especially the one with a large stipend. I told them that I would turn those down if they gave me 90% tuition (they said that was the best they could possibly do, but encouaged me to do this). They agreed, and I made the best decision by far.

I had the job on campus of giving prospective students tours. I could often tell which ones were not serious applicants just from basic discussions. Sometimes I even got nasty emails from the students after their rejection letters came.

My program had roughly 7 students admitted my year, including 2 MAs. 8 years later, three of us are finished. All three of us got jobs though, two of us before we graduated.

When it comes to job prospects, the prospects are awful. I have friends at more elite schools, I am hearing ZERO graduates got jobs. And this is more than one institution that I have heard this about.

My bottom advice is to really investigate the placement of particular professors' students at these schools. Some big-name professors' students are not really discernable--their dissertations are largely the same project, don't really make contributions, and their advisors' recommendation letters are similar faint praise. Their dissertations receive institutional prizes but aren't really publishable and are in popular side-conversations with shelf lives that expired the year they were admitted into the program.

Also, in my particular program there were two "x-factors." First, professors generally did not leave and the administration of the division and the school had the vision to prepare for retirements, and the collegiality of the institution rubbed off postively in many ways. Not only were students not in competition with each other for their professors' time, but the professors were adequately and appropriately available to the doctoral students. They weren't looking to leave. There were no tenure scandals though the junior faculty were given rigorous tenure standards. Generally the professors were interested in each others' work, and by virtue of this they were also interested in their colleagues' students. When my advisor was going through some difficult times in his personal life, a professor (who was a 'name' professor) occasionally checked in on me to make sure I was getting enough advising or attention. This wasn't necessary, but this is the kind of community that was fostered. Students who got stalled in the program got stalled because of their own issues and circumstances, and not the professors losing interest in them, abandoning them, or leaving.

Second, there were several levels of quality control with dissertation proposals, which roughly slowed down the process of proposing the dissertation by 2-6 months. Smart students could time this process out in such a way that it did not really stall the program too long. But I was instructed numerous times that I could do a typical dissertation that is the scholarly exercise, or go the extra step and and do the real constructive theological work that is often absent from theology dissertations. I ended up doing a bit of both, but the dissertation set me up for what the next project would be. I can't tell you how important this has been to my short career and I shold also mention that this question came up in several job interviews: "What's your research agenda now that you're past the dissertation?"; "Now that you've done this huge project, what now?" In other words, the dissertation was not just a hurdle, an exercise, or a learning experience, but was a transitional moment into the world of academia. Even part of my dissertation defense was focused upon what I am to do with the dissertation now that it is done--though I did the hard work leading up to the defense that there were no surprises about the outcome of the defense. (This was not always the case.) I give this factor up as one particular reason why job prospects were better than dismal here--I even had a classmate have his dissertation accepted by a major publisher for publication 'as written.' This never happens, but it happened, and his career has really taken off.

So now I am an ordained minister with a Ph.D. and teaching and writing. A few times on this board the question of M.Div.'s arises. Honestly, find pastors you know, like, and respect (if you can find any that meet these criteria) and ask their opinions about where they went and who is doing interesting stuff. There are some great seminaries and great programs with different foci. If your goal is the Ph.D and you still want the M.Div., the big name school might help, but honestly you'd probably be better served by a denominational seminary that has some solid and recognized faculty but might often get left off of "best of" lists and don't necessarily have PhD programs--places like Lutheran Philadelphia, St Vladimir's, Wesley, United, Pacific, Austin, Meadville Lombard, Lancaster, Wake Forest come to mind. Some might even let you study off-site and transfer credits from bigger schools over the course of the three year program. There are some stigmas attached to some schools--Gordon Comwell (problematic on several levels), Asubury (too politically conservative), Harvard (lack or rigor), Princeton Theological (too narrow/embarassingly weak DMin program).

This is enough of my rant, and I hope it is helpful.

Edited July 17, 2010 by TheologyGrad

[jrallison]

There are some stigmas attached to some schools--Gordon Comwell (problematic on several levels)

What specifically is problematic with Gordon-Conwell?

-Justin

[JonathanEdwards]

What specifically is problematic with Gordon-Conwell?

-Justin

There was much that was helpful and interesting about the original well-intentioned post. Nevertheless, I think it would be nice for the poster to return and explain his or her criticisms. I am not rejecting TheologyGrad’s opinions, but it’s not only a bit more fair to explain - potential students might also want to know whether the details apply to them or are related to the o.p.’s personal opinions, theological standpoint, etc.

What are the perceived problems on multiple levels with Gordon-Conwell?

How exactly is Princeton narrow?

Who at Asbury is politically conservative and how is that made a problem for the students?

Where is HDS’ lack of rigor? Language requirements? Coursework? The dissertation phase?

Edited July 25, 2010 by Westcott

[TheologyGrad]

There was much that was helpful and interesting about the original well-intentioned post. Nevertheless, I think it would be nice for the poster to return and explain his or her criticisms. I am not rejecting TheologyGrad’s opinions, but it’s not only a bit more fair to explain - potential students might also want to know whether the details apply to them or are related to the o.p.’s personal opinions, theological standpoint, etc.

What are the perceived problems on multiple levels with Gordon-Conwell?

How exactly is Princeton narrow?

Who at Asbury is politically conservative and how is that made a problem for the students?

Where is HDS’ lack of rigor? Language requirements? Coursework? The dissertation phase?

I suppose I am speaking in generalizations about reputations. Go out and talk to people at the AAR at other universities about their impressions of other schools. Draw your own conclusions.

Gordon-Conwell has a reputation of being a strong, conservative school, but not respected outside of its circles. There was something that happened there some years ago that the Methodists de-accredited the program for academic reasons. That has probably been resolved but usually Methodists de-accredit programs for political reasons or gestures, and this was an academic concern. I'm not Methodist, so I don't know the full details of this firsthand. The majority of clergy I have met from G-C would lead me to not recommend the school to anyone I cared about, though I wouldn't say that all graduates I have met from there left a negative impression with me. I'm just speaking from my experience.

The history of Princeton Theological Seminary speaks to its narrowness--rejection of German Idealism, Mercersburg Movement, etc. Now, you could certainly do a Ph.D there and be competitive on the job market, particularly if you're doing missiology or pastoral theology, which I think are strengths there. Religious Education is very strong there, too. But, again, ask around what people say about the institution. It's a conservative place. They love their very conservative interpretation of Barth. And it's very Presbyterian.

I did my CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education) unit with a PTS student who was gay, and some of the stuff she told me about what was going on at PTS was very disturbing, but this was a couple years back. She stayed because she was getting a full ride but she was clearly not happy with the community there. (She was closeted to her PTS peers.) I did not keep in contact and have no idea if she finished the program or not.

Read some of the blogs by some of the higher-profile recent grads from Princeton, and ask whether it sounds like they were happy with their program. One example of a Presbyterian ordination candidate in California with an MDiv from PTS explained that his Presbytery required him to take additional courses because they felt the PTS curriculum didn't cover what he needed to be ordained. I'm not making this up--it's just an observation.

Also, I have met some really great pastors from PTS. It's a step up from G-C. If you want to do evangelical theology, it's probably a decent place. They have money. Even though I have met a couple pastors that would lead me to question some of the theological stuff going on there, some of the graduates I have met recently there are very progressive but *all* of them were very good preachers. They do a good job in that department.

As for their D.Min., they cancelled the program, and the PTS D.Min. was kind of known to be a bit of a joke. I know one pastor well that did his DMin there, and had a good experience; and another with his DMin who I would question whether he should have been a graduate of any seminary. I was on campus once there for a conference and pulled his dissertation, and it was a joke. I remember one time hearing people make fun of the "Do the D.Min. (Prin.)" ads that PTS used to run in the Christian Century a few years back. Someone told me there was an accredidation issue with the program but I think it was seen as hurting their reputation a bit and they didn't really need the money to be a DMin diploma mill. (McCormick Seminary has that reputation covered for the Presbyterians.)

I can't speak of Asbury specifically beyond its reputation. I don't think it's really respected outside of its conservative circles. I have met a couple grads from there, all of them are Methodist, and I can't say anything really negative or positive. It's known as the Methodist school for pastors who don't think the other methodist schools aren't conservative enough. I don't think I have ever read a book or been to a conference where I heard a full-time faculty member of Asbury speak. But I'm not part of that audience. I couldn't name one faculty member there off the top of my head, to be honest.

Harvard is Harvard. I'm told their job placement hasn't been good in recent years. Harvard has a similar reputation issue with its liberalism with some people, whether deserved or not. (Drew is probably far more liberal than Harvard, though Drew doesn't have the reputation Harvard does, probably because of that evangelism guy at Drew who isn't really taken seriously outside of his circles). Harvard has made some great faculty hires over the last couple years--essentially the U of Chicago's skeletal MDiv program from the late 90's and early 00's is now at Harvard. I have come to know a couple recent grads of their Mdiv program. There is some discontent over the departure of a high-profile faculty member over some issues there. One recent grad said to me, "Most MDiv grads could talk about queer theory but not specifically about the hypostasis." This might be true, but most grads from many seminaries probably hadn't heard of either queer theory or the hypostatic union, to be honest. I wonder how many of their MDiv's actually work in churches.

The bottom line here is that the liberal / conservative divide and "reputation" question doesn't really matter if you know what it is you want to do and who your audience may or may not be. If your goal is to be a minister who works in a church, honestly, your folks aren't going to care where you went to school, only that you love them and lead them by example, and deliver a competent sermon. I went to what I think is a pretty good seminary, at least academically and "on paper," but the preaching preparation was downright awful. It's true that it's hard to teach preaching and you have to really practice to find your voice--and I didn't really find mine until I was in my dissertation stage and working in a church and audited a preaching class at a seminary that I did not attend with a professor no one had heard of but was highly recommended to me--I often wonder if the preaching instructions I had in the MDiv were counterproductive. It's telling that of my MDiv classmates, less than a fifth of us are working in a ministry position that involves preaching. But my program never really advertised strong preaching as part of its goals. Getting tools for preaching in seminary will go a long way no matter who printed your diploma or whether a big name taught the class.

So for ministers, find some clergy that you respect (if you can find any) and ask for their honest opinion about what seminaries are doing well. And go where the money is, because God knows, unless you're in a tradition that pays ministers well your student loans will become an albatross around your neck, and the future of churches at the present moment is a tremendous question mark in terms of having sustainable and financially viable congregations. Prepare to be bi-vocational. Even the Methodists, who promise employment once you're ordained, are seriously considering getting rid of this because the writing's on the wall that this is no longer a promise that can be made.

If you want to be an academic, clearly, there are certain areas of study where going to the elite schools--Harvard, Chicago, etc.--wouldn't make any sense. Bible, for example, is a field that is not my own but seems to be an area where smaller programs at the non-"name" schools are doing well in terms of placement. Why? Because their graduates actually finish the dissertation and graduate, institutions actually replace faculty departues and absences, etc. (Chicago's Bible program, for example, has been a place where they can't seem to hire and replace faculty.) I've met some theology grads from some schools that might be considered second of third tier who have secured jobs and whose preparation was very good, mostly because they were in very small programs and were mentored very well.

I hope that this is helpful. I'm not trying to piss on anyone's school. And as I said in my own story, it wasn't until someone gave me an honest take on *outcomes* of the graduate program that I really got any clarity about where I should do the Ph.D., and it worked out for me.

[Thanks4Downvoting]

Harvard is Harvard...One recent grad said to me, "Most MDiv grads could talk about queer theory but not specifically about the hypostasis."

This may or may not have made me laugh for longer than socially acceptable.

[kalnds]

Hi, all. I posted about gordon-conwell a while back, and saw it mentioned negatively here and thought I'd offer a different perspective. For my part, I'd have to say that it's simply untrue that GCTS is not respected outside its circles (and I am unaware of the split with the Methodists that was mentioned). Yes, it is associated with a distinct tradition, and of course some people can become narrowly attached to that perspective - but that happens everywhere. There is no school where all the students (or faculty for that matter) are perfectly open-minded and truly interested in the opinions of various groups with whom they disagree. So, sure, GCTS has some people that are narrowly focused and therefore do not gain the acclaim of the wider academic community, but I would say the majority are very solid, (without question non-fundamentalist, although the school is on the conservative), caring, giving people, and many are very thoughtful and smart indeed. As for academic rigor, again I'd say that yes, there are some courses (especially ministry courses) that are academically lax, but from what I hear elsewhere, that's a pretty universal phenomenon. The more academic classes are fairly rigorous, and of course the harder you work and the more initiative you show, the more you will get out of them.

Additionally, I know that they have in the past regularly sent students to Harvard for Ph.D. work (especially in Hebrew Bible), and last year sent two to Yale's Ph.D. program, another to Notre Dame's, and others to other prestigious and selective programs. So it's really untrue that it is not respected in the wider academic community. In fact, as an alum, I would recommend anyone with Christian commitments to go to GCTS. And I think they'd find that, as with anywhere else, you get out what you put in. If your goal is not to challenge yourself, to do the minimum, to focus on the negatives, to find closed-minded people, to just get by with a degree, sure you can do that there and probably find others doing the same - as you can anywhere else! If on the other hand your goal is to get a terrific theological education, learn the biblical (and other) languages, meet fun, interesting, and faithful people, study under a very sharp and generally available faculty, live in an absolutely gorgeous part of the country, have access to the largest theological consortium in the world (including virtually unlimited access to courses and libraries at Harvard, BC, and elsewhere), and challenge yourself to do the best academic work, perhaps even worthy of further studies, even at some of the most highly regarded universities in the world, then I would say GCTS is a really fantastic place to go. Just my two cents.

Edited December 14, 2010 by kalnds

[JonathanEdwards]

Hi, all. I posted about gordon-conwell a while back, and saw it mentioned negatively here and thought I'd offer a different perspective. For my part, I'd have to say that it's simply untrue that GCTS is not respected outside its circles (and I am unaware of the split with the Methodists that was mentioned). Yes, it is associated with a distinct tradition, and of course some people can become narrowly attached to that perspective - but that happens everywhere. There is no school where all the students (or faculty for that matter) are perfectly open-minded and truly interested in the opinions of various groups with whom they disagree. So, sure, GCTS has some people that are narrowly focused and therefore do not gain the acclaim of the wider academic community, but I would say the majority are very solid, (without question non-fundamentalist, although the school is on the conservative), caring, giving people, and many are very thoughtful and smart indeed. As for academic rigor, again I'd say that yes, there are some courses (especially ministry courses) that are academically lax, but from what I hear elsewhere, that's a pretty universal phenomenon. The more academic classes are fairly rigorous, and of course the harder you work and the more initiative you show, the more you will get out of them.

Additionally, I know that they have in the past regularly sent students to Harvard for Ph.D. work (especially in Hebrew Bible), and last year sent two to Yale's Ph.D. program, another to Notre Dame's, and others to other prestigious and selective programs. So it's really untrue that it is not respected in the wider academic community. In fact, as an alum, I would recommend anyone with Christian commitments to go to GCTS. And I think they'd find that, as with anywhere else, you get out what you put in. If your goal is not to challenge yourself, to do the minimum, to focus on the negatives, to find closed-minded people, to just get by with a degree, sure you can do that there and probably find others doing the same - as you can anywhere else! If on the other hand your goal is to get a terrific theological education, learn the biblical (and other) languages, meet fun, interesting, and faithful people, study under a very sharp and generally available faculty, live in an absolutely gorgeous part of the country, have access to the largest theological consortium in the world (including virtually unlimited access to courses and libraries at Harvard, BC, and elsewhere), and challenge yourself to do the best academic work, perhaps even worthy of further studies, even at some of the most highly regarded universities in the world, then I would say GCTS is a really fantastic place to go. Just my two cents.

I appreciate TheologyGrad providing both their personal experience and what they have heard from others. Sharing such information is what forums like this are here for. Having said that, I disagree regarding Gordon-Conwell (the other schools I don’t have personal experience with and would rather not speculate). Like Kalnds, none of this is to claim that GCTS is the perfect seminary (such doesn’t exist) or to denigrate others’ choices, just to add another person’s perspective.

On the relational side, I found Gordon-Conwell a model for respectful behavior among Christians from very different backgrounds. Coming from a previous seminary which had a very boisterous approach to anyone of a remotely different tradition, it was a breath of fresh air. I lived on campus and saw that gracious demeanor exhibited by faculty, staff and fellow students. That same affirming attitude was extended to students, Christian and non-Christian alike, who took classes while registered at one of the other BTI schools, which brings me to the academic side of things.

Gordon-Conwell is part of the Boston Theological Institute, eight schools which allow their students to cross-register for courses at each other. That is a level of recognition which is rare for an evangelical seminary - GCTS is the only one I’m aware of which enjoys this broader relationship. The other schools (Harvard Divinity School, Boston University, Boston College, Episcopal Divinity School, Holy Cross, St. Johns, Andover-Newton), have a good relationship with GCTS because of demonstrated student ability and mutual faculty respect. One proof of this on the student side is in GCTS’ record of placing M.A., M.Div., and Th.M. grads into the best Ph.D. programs in the world. The year I graduated, everyone that I was aware of that wanted to go on for a Ph.D. was able to do so, and at universities like Oxford, Toronto, Cambridge, Harvard, Edinburgh, London, UNC, Queens, etc. On the faculty side, many of the GCTS professors were trained at the same places as their peers at the other BTI schools.

[sacklunch]

I haven't really figured this out yet...but, where is GC? I have heard they have a Boston campus, which isn't there main campus, right? They just don't seem to be offering that many courses in Boston, at least according to the BTI schedule. So with that in mind, I am wondering how many people are full time at the Boston campus? You would have to drive to the other schools right (T won't go that far)?

[JonathanEdwards]

I haven't really figured this out yet...but, where is GC? I have heard they have a Boston campus, which isn't there main campus, right? They just don't seem to be offering that many courses in Boston, at least according to the BTI schedule. So with that in mind, I am wondering how many people are full time at the Boston campus? You would have to drive to the other schools right (T won't go that far)?

GCTS' main campus is in South Hamilton, on the train line. I used to commute to both Chestnut Hill and Cambridge, and it was a good opportunity to re-read the seminar texts. The Boston campus is indeed much smaller.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Westcott

[11Q13]

GCTS' main campus is in South Hamilton, on the train line. I used to commute to both Chestnut Hill and Cambridge, and it was a good opportunity to re-read the seminar texts. The Boston campus is indeed much smaller.

I'm at Harvard Divinity and can confirm and deny a couple things, at least about the Master's level.

First, unfortunately it is very true that an MDiv will have a better chance of coming away an expert in Queer or Feminist theology than knowing anything important (personal bias) like Early Christian theology. A lesbian cohort of mine who graduated from Wellesley has loved the course offerings, but was not at all embarrassed when the topic of the New Testament came up and she couldn't even name the books of the New Testament. I myself was aghast to say the least. The school is about as left as it gets and I'd say a conservative figure for the percentage of homosexual students is 50%

As far as a lack of rigor, I think that is either misplaced or a misunderstanding. Because Harvard Div is pluralist it means in a New Testament class you will have Unitarian Universalists, Muslims, etc reading the New Testament for the first time, which anywhere else would be pretty unheard of at this level. For that reason, introductory classes might not have expectations as high as other top tier seminaries, but that doesn't mean the work load or rigor is any less really. Having a strong background in Bible I never felt like I was held back by others or that the professors were dumbing things down for them. The upper level stuff is as tough and rigorous as it comes, many course offerings having requirements that imply that you would need to have begun completing them prior to matriculating in order to even qualify to take them before you graduate. As far as languages go, at least for Greek and Hebrew, we do in one semester what most places do in a year, half the class usually drops out, and the work load is obscene.

The other thing about Harvard is the number of departments we have. There is the Center for Women's Studies in Religion which is kind of it's own thing, The Center for the Study of World Religions which is also kind of it's own thing, the Divinity School as a whole, the department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations which isn't part of Harvard Div but shares a lot of faculty, the Center for Jewish studies, the various language departments, and the separate history, politics, business, philosophy, etc. The variety of resources produces an extremely broad array of graduates, from the Queer Theologian that can't name the books of the Bible, to the Semitic Philologist that spends their free time memorizing paradigm charts of dead languages.