History vs. Religious Studies PhD

[hildewijch]

I am currently a master's student at Divinity school, looking at applications for Fall 2012. My situation is that I have BA's in both History and Religious studies, though I did more of my undergrad coursework in history than religion. When I came to applying for my masters, I decided to go with Religion because my interests ran in the comparative religion direction, and I felt RS was the only place to carry out the kind of research I was interested in. Part way through the second year of my program, my focus has changed quite a bit. I have realized that I wish to focus on medieval religious history - most likely primarily Western European, but I am very interested in interaction between the Latin West and the Byzantine-Slavic (and to a lesser extent, Islamic) world. I have a strong background in this area of history, though my language skills are less strong.

I have received conflicting advice about whether it would make more sense for me to pursue my interests in History or Religion. I know that each field approaches the subject with its own theoretical angles and questions, but I am not really sure which approach would fit me better - I could see myself being content with either, to a certain extent. The other issue that has been raised is employability, though once again I have received various answers, with some professors saying that since Religion departments will at times hire historians but not vice versa, it makes more sense to get a History degree. Conversely, I have been told that the religion job market is better than History, so it would make more sense to have a broad 'History of Christianity' degree within Religion and be able to teach classes at a small religious college if necessary. Thoughts?

[Sparky]

The job market in history sucks.

On the other hand, the number one message of the AAR this year is/was, the job market in religion sucks. Especially the job market in history of Christianity.

I guess it comes down to two things: first, if you can't get a tenure-track job at a 'regular' university/college, would you rather teach at a seminary or a high school? Although keep in mind that as a medievalist, your pool of places to work will be smaller--Protestant seminaries are not so much with the medieval church.

Second, and more importantly: the way "they" generally say to pick a subject is, would you rather teach Intro to World Civ (/US history/etc) or Intro to Theology? Do you see yourself teaching Theological Anthropology in Early Modern America, or Conquest & Colonialism? Because when you teach, you won't just be teaching in what you research. You'll be lucky, in fact, if you ever get to teach a class in something close.

That's the main reason I switched from religion (MA) to history (PhD)--I'm a medievalist as well, and while I my specific topic, I cannot for the life of me conceive of teaching a course on Aquinas and Scotus.

Something else to consider: apply to some history programs, and some religion programs, and see what shakes out (this is what I did; I'm very happy i ended up in a history/interdisciplinary dept). There are fewer good religion programs than good history programs--which is one of the reasons religion/theology people tend to apply to fewer schools--so applying to history programs as well gives you a better shot.

And also, I PM'ed you.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Sparky

[Nytusse]

I also chose to make the switch from a Master's in religion to a PhD in history. For me, I did feel that there was something more methodologically compelling about history versus religion, although my fit with history is not exactly perfect.

I have consistently heard that there is more of a market for religion profs. Yes, they may be having a tough job market now (like many other people), but I would still say that it is slightly better than history.

One caution--and maybe it isn't as valid for medievalists--is that I have felt, and still sometimes feel, skepticism from historians regarding my "rigor" because I came from a Divinity school. Many people assume I am some sort of devoted minister or something, and there have definitely be times I felt that I appeared to be less serious as a historian. When I applied last year, I actually heard back from one professor that I should have had more LORs from historians, even though two of my letter writers were HISTORIANS (by education and by practice). Apparently, history of Christianity or something similar just doesn't count?

[sacklunch]

I also chose to make the switch from a Master's in religion to a PhD in history. For me, I did feel that there was something more methodologically compelling about history versus religion, although my fit with history is not exactly perfect.

I have consistently heard that there is more of a market for religion profs. Yes, they may be having a tough job market now (like many other people), but I would still say that it is slightly better than history.

One caution--and maybe it isn't as valid for medievalists--is that I have felt, and still sometimes feel, skepticism from historians regarding my "rigor" because I came from a Divinity school. Many people assume I am some sort of devoted minister or something, and there have definitely be times I felt that I appeared to be less serious as a historian. When I applied last year, I actually heard back from one professor that I should have had more LORs from historians, even though two of my letter writers were HISTORIANS (by education and by practice). Apparently, history of Christianity or something similar just doesn't count?

I have encountered a similar reaction from other grad students in history, and honestly even fellow classmates in theology. I guess it makes sense, since many of the grad students in theology are doing something fairly "practical" while there are less of us (me) doing it for purely academic reasons. Also, as a previous poster said there are a lot more divinity/religious programs, while few of them seem to be "worth a damn"...I don't know much about history, but it makes sense there would be much more well respected programs.

I am curious if we can take this discussion a bit farther. What/how does history differ in its methodology from "academic theology?"