Rationale Behind HDS Acceptances/Rejections

[alexrodriguez]

As much as I want to avoid speculating what the HDS adcom was looking for, I can't help but to make a few assumptions after reading of others being rejected with similar stats/educational background who applied for the MTS degree. I graduated cum lauda from a competitive liberal arts school in New England (which not to pat myself too much on the back, would be a magna at many other schools because there was no grade inflation cough cough...), had stellar recommendations, and corporate work experience to demonstrate the maturity in my decision to return to graduate school. I have a bend towards social justice, but as others who apply for the more academic MTS degree admit, my interests are not so much in volunteerism/activism as they are in advancing theological discussion. Yes, I realize I'm going to take heat for that statement.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I would argue HDS is trying to do: change their image from elitist/liberal northeast divinity school to the beacon of social justice by welcoming very untraditional students, most of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds or lesser known academic institutions. What is going to get HDS attention in the news? That a student/professor submitted a brilliant paper to a well-recognized journal? No, no one in the media cares about that, and therefore, no one cares to donate to such a program. Now, what about a story of the disadvantaged student who was granted such a fabulous opportunity to change the world through the resources at HDS? Yes, more mediable and therefore bigger bucks. I'm getting the impression that HDS is less interested in doing theology than they are demonstrating how involved they are in social justice. It just won't bring in any funding, from donors and the larger university if they do traditional theology anymore. I would even bet that the MTS degree, or at least some of the concentrations, get roped into the MDiv over the next few years.

Am I a bitter? No, but of course I'll admit that it stings. Does everyone else deserve their acceptances? Asbofrickenlutely, everyone here is intelligent, has a story to tell, and can truly offer any of these programs something unique.

OK- go ahead, rip into this.

[Sparky]

as others who apply for the more academic MTS degree admit, my interests are not so much in volunteerism/activism as they are in advancing theological discussion.

I'm getting the impression that HDS is less interested in doing theology than they are demonstrating how involved they are in social justice. It just won't bring in any funding, from donors and the larger university if they do traditional theology anymore.

I don't know anything about HDS admissions choices and I'm not going to speculate. But, assuming (which is a big assumption) you're right that HDS made their decisions based on whatever kind(s) of affirmative action:

Why do you assume that seeking out "nontraditional" (of whatever flavor) students is opposed to advancing the theological conversation? Theology is one of the whitest, East Coast, most male, most bourgeois-heavy disciplines in academia, at least as far as humanities/social sciences go (and that's saying something, because Academia *is* the bourgeoisie). Maybe HDS wants Midwestern farm kids and divorced mothers and people whose families lost everything in Hurricane Katrina not because HDS needs another rags-to-riches story to get donations (oh please) but because the faculty are aware that theological conversation around social justice issues--heck, all issues--is overfilled with well-intentioned middle class white men* pontificating on why god lets Those People suffer.

In other words:

Consider the possibility that the HDS faculty believe different life experiences are an important part of advancing the theological conversation.

_{* This is not to imply that all people who were denied admission are upper/middle class, white, and male, nor that no such applicants were accepted. Obviously.}

[tt503]

As much as I want to avoid speculating what the HDS adcom was looking for, I can't help but to make a few assumptions after reading of others being rejected with similar stats/educational background who applied for the MTS degree. I graduated cum lauda from a competitive liberal arts school in New England (which not to pat myself too much on the back, would be a magna at many other schools because there was no grade inflation cough cough...), had stellar recommendations, and corporate work experience to demonstrate the maturity in my decision to return to graduate school. I have a bend towards social justice, but as others who apply for the more academic MTS degree admit, my interests are not so much in volunteerism/activism as they are in advancing theological discussion. Yes, I realize I'm going to take heat for that statement.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I would argue HDS is trying to do: change their image from elitist/liberal northeast divinity school to the beacon of social justice by welcoming very untraditional students, most of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds or lesser known academic institutions. What is going to get HDS attention in the news? That a student/professor submitted a brilliant paper to a well-recognized journal? No, no one in the media cares about that, and therefore, no one cares to donate to such a program. Now, what about a story of the disadvantaged student who was granted such a fabulous opportunity to change the world through the resources at HDS? Yes, more mediable and therefore bigger bucks. I'm getting the impression that HDS is less interested in doing theology than they are demonstrating how involved they are in social justice. It just won't bring in any funding, from donors and the larger university if they do traditional theology anymore. I would even bet that the MTS degree, or at least some of the concentrations, get roped into the MDiv over the next few years.

Am I a bitter? No, but of course I'll admit that it stings. Does everyone else deserve their acceptances? Asbofrickenlutely, everyone here is intelligent, has a story to tell, and can truly offer any of these programs something unique.

OK- go ahead, rip into this.

I applied to HDS twice, and I was a very "non-traditional" student (homeschooled, midwestern, first in my family to graduate college, lower class),and I also worked full-time during my education, putting myself through undergrad and a masters program (I applied for Hebrew Bible). I had a poor undergraduate record, and a relatively better graduate record with the requisite languages (3.7+), teaching experience, relevant field experience, publication/presentation. I was not given many opportunities, but made all the opportunities I had, I made for myself.

Did I catch a "break" in admissions because I was from a lower socio-economic status? That I was female? That I was <insert whatever excuse here>? No. I was rejected just like everyone else (presumably, because I had a lower GPA than other applicants. YDS straight out told me that if I didn't have a 3.7 undergraduate GPA, that I could basically forget about it, regardless of my other qualifications). That, coupled with the fact that I knew a lot of people in the NELC dept. who told me that some of the admitted Hebrew Bible candidates couldn't even pass a first-year Biblical Hebrew text class because they didn't know the language....made me question what exactly adcoms wanted. And it made me upset because I worked so hard and other, seemingly less-qualified candidates, were accepted.

Whatever HDS does, they have a rubric for admissions that I didn't figure out. Don't sweat it.

HDS isn't the end-all, be-all of academia. I'm now at a different Ivy League school, in a different field (social sciences) than religion. So, you can still be successful...you just have to love what you do and not give up.

[KreacherKeeper]

I applied to HDS twice, and I was a very "non-traditional" student (homeschooled, midwestern, first in my family to graduate college, lower class),and I also worked full-time during my education, putting myself through undergrad and a masters program (I applied for Hebrew Bible). I had a poor undergraduate record, and a relatively better graduate record with the requisite languages (3.7+), teaching experience, relevant field experience, publication/presentation. I was not given many opportunities, but made all the opportunities I had, I made for myself.

Did I catch a "break" in admissions because I was from a lower socio-economic status? That I was female? That I was <insert whatever excuse here>? No. I was rejected just like everyone else (presumably, because I had a lower GPA than other applicants. YDS straight out told me that if I didn't have a 3.7 undergraduate GPA, that I could basically forget about it, regardless of my other qualifications). That, coupled with the fact that I knew a lot of people in the NELC dept. who told me that some of the admitted Hebrew Bible candidates couldn't even pass a first-year Biblical Hebrew text class because they didn't know the language....made me question what exactly adcoms wanted. And it made me upset because I worked so hard and other, seemingly less-qualified candidates, were accepted.

Whatever HDS does, they have a rubric for admissions that I didn't figure out. Don't sweat it.

HDS isn't the end-all, be-all of academia. I'm now at a different Ivy League school, in a different field (social sciences) than religion. So, you can still be successful...you just have to love what you do and not give up.

I think part of it is that Harvard wants to build their type of scholar, so persons with graduate degrees or hardcore experience that to an outsider may seem like it would be good for a elite school to consider, may actually be a hinderance. For example, would you rather work with fresh clay or clay that has already been molded a bit by another person? It may be that whatever rubric they use to make decisions reflects the desire of a person to be fresh and 'teachable' (this according to the rubric and not according to actuality).

In any event, I have to admit I was disappointed with this cycle and questioned their decision as well. At one point, reading some of the rejected stats and looking at fellow applicants that clearly would be a benefit to HDS, I had to wonder if it was backwards day. From this forum it is clear that people that were rejected (or not given enough money to attend) were very smart, capable and theologically minded. It may be perhaps that there were just too many theologically minded people and some people did not fit in a needed box.

But I agree, happiness cannot be tied up solely with a particular school. This is a lesson I am slowly coming to terms with!

[sacklunch]

The students I know that were accepted last year vary quite a bit. One of them was home schooled, Midwestern, ect...the others went to expensive private liberal arts schools, ect.

I don't think they have any sort of agenda as you propose. I think they just had a ton of applicants, especially in light of the recession, so they get the students they want (that varies I'm sure, just depending on interest, program applied, ect). The fact that it is "Harvard" makes their applicant pool pretty large, I'm sure much larger than most of the other divinity/theological schools (guess).

Edited March 13, 2011 by jdmhotness

[vega maudlin]

Well... I got admitted at HDS, and I graduated with honors at a relatively elite institution, and my interests do not particularly revolve around social justice. I might qualify for "interested in interfaith dialogue"... but that's about it.

Also, why would HDS be the school to change its image to get more funding? Harvard has the largest endowment of... essentially anyone. If they need to bend towards social justice to get funding, why doesn't Yale or Chicago or Duke have to do likewise?

As much as I want to avoid speculating what the HDS adcom was looking for, I can't help but to make a few assumptions after reading of others being rejected with similar stats/educational background who applied for the MTS degree. I graduated cum lauda from a competitive liberal arts school in New England (which not to pat myself too much on the back, would be a magna at many other schools because there was no grade inflation cough cough...), had stellar recommendations, and corporate work experience to demonstrate the maturity in my decision to return to graduate school. I have a bend towards social justice, but as others who apply for the more academic MTS degree admit, my interests are not so much in volunteerism/activism as they are in advancing theological discussion. Yes, I realize I'm going to take heat for that statement.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I would argue HDS is trying to do: change their image from elitist/liberal northeast divinity school to the beacon of social justice by welcoming very untraditional students, most of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds or lesser known academic institutions. What is going to get HDS attention in the news? That a student/professor submitted a brilliant paper to a well-recognized journal? No, no one in the media cares about that, and therefore, no one cares to donate to such a program. Now, what about a story of the disadvantaged student who was granted such a fabulous opportunity to change the world through the resources at HDS? Yes, more mediable and therefore bigger bucks. I'm getting the impression that HDS is less interested in doing theology than they are demonstrating how involved they are in social justice. It just won't bring in any funding, from donors and the larger university if they do traditional theology anymore. I would even bet that the MTS degree, or at least some of the concentrations, get roped into the MDiv over the next few years.

Am I a bitter? No, but of course I'll admit that it stings. Does everyone else deserve their acceptances? Asbofrickenlutely, everyone here is intelligent, has a story to tell, and can truly offer any of these programs something unique.

OK- go ahead, rip into this.

[Trin]

. I have a bend towards social justice, but as others who apply for the more academic MTS degree admit, my interests are not so much in volunteerism/activism as they are in advancing theological discussion. Yes, I realize I'm going to take heat for that statement.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I would argue HDS is trying to do: change their image from elitist/liberal northeast divinity school to the beacon of social justice by welcoming very untraditional students, most of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds or lesser known academic institutions.

Wow. *smile* I mentioned to my SO last night that there was a whole thread that could be summed up as "How did *she* get admitted?" and then read him the thread and responses. I realize that I'm not the only person you're referencing, but I think we can both be honest that I'm probably one of the admits that confuses people.

I'd like to respond generally with this: http://www.hds.harvard.edu/about_hds/mission_vision.html. It's HDS's mission statement. There's also this interview with the HDS dean: http://www.rahimkanani.com/2010/11/22/an-in-depth-interview-with-william-graham-dean-of-harvard-divinity-school-hds-on-the-schools-evolution-teaching-and-scholarship-extremism-and-the-media-and-the-need-to-understand-religion-as/ . Togther, they represent a roadmap, a kind of summation of what HDS imagines itself to be and (more importantly for admissions) what kind of students they envision admitting and producing. You'll notice that especially in the Dean's statement, there's some very clear information about what HDS has been and would like to be. In some ways, it's similar to your ideas about it -- but it's explicit. There's no secret agenda.

I think what I would take issue with is that idea that such a focus has to involve "very untraditional students," or that the students that you think of that way actually *are* as unusual as you think. In my case, my academic chops go back more than 20 years, and include a firm foundation in Biblical Studies and theology, complete with coursework in Biblical Hebrew and Latin. My transcript is thick with the mainstays of comparative studies, and my most recent work is a pretty traditional grounding in world religions. Yes, I'm an older student, but I would say that most "unusual" thing about me is my willingness to combine elements in my scholarship that aren't normally on the same page, so to speak. Even that, though, is becoming an increasing part of the discipline, or at least of comparative studies.

I don't think that I was admitted to HDS because I'd make a good media story, or an element of some reframing of the institution as a "beacon of social justice". I think I was admitted because I sifted through the HDS website and writings of professors I admire there -- Diana Eck and Leila Ahmed, for example -- and then made sure that my application represented a clear narrative that answered the question, "Why are you a good fit for HDS?" If I had been applying to Yale or Chicago or Union, my SOP, essays, and recommendations would have looked different, because they'd have been tailored for that narrative instead.

[Trin]

I don't know anything about HDS admissions choices and I'm not going to speculate. But, assuming (which is a big assumption) you're right that HDS made their decisions based on whatever kind(s) of affirmative action:

Why do you assume that seeking out "nontraditional" (of whatever flavor) students is opposed to advancing the theological conversation? Theology is one of the whitest, East Coast, most male, most bourgeois-heavy disciplines in academia, at least as far as humanities/social sciences go (and that's saying something, because Academia *is* the bourgeoisie). Maybe HDS wants Midwestern farm kids and divorced mothers and people whose families lost everything in Hurricane Katrina not because HDS needs another rags-to-riches story to get donations (oh please) but because the faculty are aware that theological conversation around social justice issues--heck, all issues--is overfilled with well-intentioned middle class white men* pontificating on why god lets Those People suffer.

In other words:

Consider the possibility that the HDS faculty believe different life experiences are an important part of advancing the theological conversation.

_{* This is not to imply that all people who were denied admission are upper/middle class, white, and male, nor that no such applicants were accepted. Obviously.}

I really appreciate you saying this. It's something that came up in my essays and SOP for HDS, too. One of the biggest themes of my app was my commitment to making sure that marginalized voices are part of the theological conversation. In my case, I spent several years doing theology in that academic context. I remember once asking my major advisor if we could include some of the "new" feminist theological scholarship in my coursework. He told me, "Well, we could offer that Women of the Bible class again, how would that be?" *smile* It simply wasn't in the realm of that department to include that "other" scholarship back then. In academic contets, I'm the person asking who isn't being represented, who isn't being heard, and which experiences aren't acknowledged. I think you can have rigorous scholarship that is also inclusive. That's not about fundraising or endowments or being a good media story -- but it *is* very much in line with HDS's official vision and mission statements.

[KreacherKeeper]

Honestly, I don't think we can look at a sample size as small as what is represented on GradCafe and come up with a conclusion at all except that there are a lot of people who applied and were extraordinarily talented, some got in, some did not get in. And likely there is a misfire who got in who people will say, 'really?" (Kind of like on American Idol)...It is also fair to say that those who got in and have the money to go are happy, those who didn't aren't.

But guessing and trying to play a worthy group against an unworthy group or saying that one person failed to do something right, I am not sure will get us anywhere.

But that is just my 2 cents....

Edited March 14, 2011 by KreacherKeeper

[Phenomenologist]

Honestly, I don't think we can look at a sample size as small as what is represented on GradCafe and come up with a conclusion at all except that there are a lot of people who applied and were extraordinarily talented, some got in, some did not get in.

Sample size -- I think this is a crucial point.

[Trin]

Honestly, I don't think we can look at a sample size as small as what is represented on GradCafe and come up with a conclusion at all except that there are a lot of people who applied and were extraordinarily talented, some got in, some did not get in. And likely there is a misfire who got in who people will say, 'really?" (Kind of like on American Idol)...It is also fair to say that those who got in and have the money to go are happy, those who didn't aren't.

But guessing and trying to play a worthy group against an unworthy group or saying that one person failed to do something right, I am not sure will get us anywhere.

But that is just my 2 cents....

I agree, and I hope it didn't sound as if I was suggesting that others didn't do something right. And I certainly agree, it's a very small sample size.

[Dillskyplayer]

I agree, and I hope it didn't sound as if I was suggesting that others didn't do something right. And I certainly agree, it's a very small sample size.

OK time for the whole "cover your butt" disclaimer. I am 1. not being elitist 2. not being butthurt 3. not being a prick to those of you who got in.

I was hurting pretty hard last week about this. "How did X get in instead of me---what the heck? This clown? This chump? This undergrad?!!!!" --- I came to the conclusion that I don't know dick about any of you, or you of me. I don't know if you're white, yellow, red, brown, male or female. BUT I can say that I'm a white, midwestern, middleclass, protestant, married, male in my twenties (liberal, yes) -- which doesn't have the same effect on an adcom as other underrepresented peoples. Me? I'm the majority in the states. I am not underrepresented in colleges/graduate schools.

I've come to the conclusion that it's a crap shoot. It's HDS. They've got a prerogative just like any other school. I have served on advisory counsels for my journal and I know what goes into "picking" authors/people to represent us: can he/she bring some underrepresented perspective into this journal/institution? You think that little "box" next to nationality/ethnicity/sex/married-unmarried doesn't make a difference with applications? Wrong. These things are behind closed doors. But that's besides the point for our purposes here. Trust me, the distance between you and the hegemony helps.

A few months ago upon asking for references, one of my professors told me, "Dude. HDS? Throw away your money man, throw it away. Just finish your MDIV here and surrender your MAR and finish it in a year." He's a very well known, well-written professor of OT in the US, so I should have listened to him. The reason he told me this was NOT because HDS is a bad school--it's because I have ALREADY been trained.

Yes, I've already been trained for four years of grad/postgraduate school. The thing is this: even if I would have gone to HDS at this point, come to think of it, there's nothing really that can be taught to me that I can't learn on my own. I've been trained. Ergo---I'd be a poor investment for another school to dump thousands and thousands of dollars into.

So, if you've ALREADY been trained to read/write/research/study -- if you've been trained to do languages, do Bible, do ministry (AT A GRADUATE LEVEL) -- then you're probably not what they're looking for. I wish I would have thought about that a bit more 100 dollars ago and days worth of proofing/editing silly admissions stuff. Undergrad can train you for some of this stuff, but it's not the same -- it's far more cursory (at least in my experience).

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but good for you if you got in and can afford it. If you can't, good luck paying it off some day. I hope HDS serves you well in TRAINING YOU. I can say, though, that in my current program that I have HDS M.Div graduates and they are not any different than any other seminary student around me. We are smart, articulate, and capable people--some of us just bring some more "attractive trappings" to our institutions statistics. That IS a component. Appealing to the schools liberal/social justice sensibilities? Whether you did it or not, that's part of the game too.

So, congratulations if you got in and are going. But don't pat yourself on the back too hard. That is, DON'T take on the pretentious attitude of a stereotypical Harvard student from some crappy tween movie. You're still the same person--you're just going to the Divinity School. If you didn't get in, don't be too butthurt. You'll get in some where some day. You've got to ask yourself this: Who am I?

Edited March 14, 2011 by Dillskyplayer

[Phenomenologist]

If HDS uses affirmative action to admit students to a degree (which surely is true to a degree, but we don't know to what degree), we shouldn't rag on them for that. In fact, I'm taking a sociology class right now that is exclusively on "diversity and inequality" in the U.S. After this class, I'm convinced that no amount of affirmative action is "too much" to compensate for the systemic injustices perpetrated against minorities in the past in the U.S., particularly against black Americans. (No, I'm not black.) But honestly, I think that it would be completely appropriate if all black people just got a free-ride to college, since they're parents and grandparents were systematically denied veterans' benefits from wars, housing subsidies in the suburban boom, etc. (Only temporarily, for like a generation or so.) But seriously, the equity gap between whites and minorities is staggering, and it's not because whites "work harder." Arguably, the opposite is true -- minorities are forced into jobs that are "harder work," but they are wage-slaves.

Anyway, I'm genuinely sympathetic with your crappy application season -- that sucks a lot. But let's not knock affirmative action. Yes, it sucks that minorities get in instead of white people simple because they're minorities. However, whites have a "social location" of wealth and lifestyle where they can go to college generally, while minorities often cannot, generally. This is painting with broad brush-strokes, but affirmative action is far from complete.

[Dillskyplayer]

If HDS uses affirmative action to admit students to a degree (which surely is true to a degree, but we don't know to what degree), we shouldn't rag on them for that. In fact, I'm taking a sociology class right now that is exclusively on "diversity and inequality" in the U.S. After this class, I'm convinced that no amount of affirmative action is "too much" to compensate for the systemic injustices perpetrated against minorities in the past in the U.S., particularly against black Americans. (No, I'm not black.) But honestly, I think that it would be completely appropriate if all black people just got a free-ride to college, since they're parents and grandparents were systematically denied veterans' benefits from wars, housing subsidies in the suburban boom, etc. (Only temporarily, for like a generation or so.) But seriously, the equity gap between whites and minorities is staggering, and it's not because whites "work harder." Arguably, the opposite is true -- minorities are forced into jobs that are "harder work," but they are wage-slaves.

Anyway, I'm genuinely sympathetic with your crappy application season -- that sucks a lot. But let's not knock affirmative action. Yes, it sucks that minorities get in instead of white people simple because they're minorities. However, whites have a "social location" of wealth and lifestyle where they can go to college generally, while minorities often cannot, generally. This is painting with broad brush-strokes, but affirmative action is far from complete.

I am not knocking affirmative action. I am merely affirming that it happens and for good reason. To gloss over it and say, "I didn't get in because I'm white" does not work here. What does work, however, is saying that it IS taken into consideration when studying religion: underrepresented peoples have and continually are oppressed by religion and need to be represented. The commonplace WASP has been represented thoroughly throughout US history in seminaries and divinity schools.

So, in sum, I did not mean to knock affirmative action here, I am knocking how that "check box" DOES make a difference (even though schools and admissions folks say that it doesn't) Sorry, it does make some difference.Not against affirmative action, but definitely am saying that it IS important to have underrepresented peoples in seminaries/divinity schools due to their marginalization in US history (and history in the Western World in general).

Edited March 14, 2011 by Dillskyplayer

[Phenomenologist]

I see, I think I understand your position. You're not knocking affirmative action, you're just knocking people for doing it but yet saying they DON'T do it, is that right? Yes, I think I may agree with you there.

Anyway, I don't mean to be combative -- I am genuinely sympathetic with your scenario. I am married with children, myself, and I often get frustrated at competing with young, single liberal-arts folks who can ace the GRE, while I haven't taken a math class in like 10 years.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Phenomenologist

[Dillskyplayer]

I see, I think I understand your position. You're not knocking affirmative action, you're just knocking people for doing it but yet saying they DON'T do it, is that right? Yes, I think I may agree with you there.

Anyway, I don't mean to be combative -- I am genuinely sympathetic with your scenario. I am married with children, myself, and I often get frustrated at competing with young, single liberal-arts folks who can ace the GRE, while I haven't taken a math class in like 10 years.

=]

I just know it's a component of admissions.

The GRE - yikes. I had to take it for PHD applications and never want to look at another math problem again. I use math once a year: tax time. In my time as a religion student I have never used it, save, for cardinal/ordinal numbers in Hebrew or for gemmatria. But, that's a component too (the objective component -- the great equalizer).

[new mexico]

Just use Kaplan's Math Review book to study for that section of the GRE. I used it, and it made the quantitative section incredibly easy.

Anyway, I didn't apply to Harvard (though I might for the ThD) because I wasn't interested in it for the M.Div. I'm sorry to those that weren't

accepted. The admissions process is, to put it simply, not fair. Don't give up hope! And, more importantly, remember that Harvard is not

the be-all and end-all of education. I'm sure Harvard probably receives numerous applications in which the applicant obviously just wants

to get a degree from Harvard even though he / she may not be a great fit, and I'm sure this is why many people are probably rejected.

I have some friends that applied to HDS for philosophical and historical theology, which makes no sense to me at all. I can understand

applying to University of Oxford, St. Louis University, Wheaton College, and other schools for the aforementioned subfields, but I don't

think, at least from all that I've heard, that HDS is strong in these fields. Perhaps this is why they were rejected.

Don't lose hope!!

[Trin]

=]

I just know it's a component of admissions.

The GRE - yikes. I had to take it for PHD applications and never want to look at another math problem again. I use math once a year: tax time. In my time as a religion student I have never used it, save, for cardinal/ordinal numbers in Hebrew or for gemmatria. But, that's a component too (the objective component -- the great equalizer).

OMG, GRE math. I hadn't had any math coursework since 1985 when I took it! I did study a little bit, but not as much as I should, so I had a 660 or 680 or something like that. My friends joked with me constantly about the uses for calculus in religious studies -- counting the change in angels on pin heads over time, etc.

[Sparky]

=]

I just know it's a component of admissions.

The GRE - yikes. I had to take it for PHD applications and never want to look at another math problem again. I use math once a year: tax time. In my time as a religion student I have never used it, save, for cardinal/ordinal numbers in Hebrew or for gemmatria. But, that's a component too (the objective component -- the great equalizer).

There SO needs to be a gematria section on the GRE.

(Seriously: it's the perfect union of qualitative, quantitative, and bullsh*t. Gematria *is* the GRE).

[Trin]

There SO needs to be a gematria section on the GRE.

(Seriously: it's the perfect union of qualitative, quantitative, and bullsh*t. Gematria *is* the GRE).

I want a *like* button for this, because I totally could have rocked that. Also, I'd use Kaplan to study -- Aryeh Kaplan. *laugh*

[Phenomenologist]

There SO needs to be a gematria section on the GRE.

(Seriously: it's the perfect union of qualitative, quantitative, and bullsh*t. Gematria *is* the GRE).

+1

[11Q13]

I'm finishing my first year at HDS and on top of having top credentials recs and so forth you have to "fit." I would say a lot of the fits are "non-traditional", but they are still specific. For the MTS, Womens Studies in Religion and Queer Theology are the mainstays, half of our student body is gay and I'd say at least 75% would identify themselves as feminist. Are you gay? Are you a feminist? If you answer is no to both of these then your research interest are not aligned with about half of the school. Of the half that are left you have traditional biblical studies and theology and non-Bible related religion focuses. If you want to study something relating to the Bible that isn't feminist or queer you're really applying to about 1/4 of the spots.

I was admitted because I've had some blow your mind experiences at the borders of Christianity Judaism and Islam in addition to having really good stats and recs. But I know I was admitted near the back of the pack because I only got partial funding. As much as it irks me, and you it seems, an unshaven lesbian from Wellesley that's never opened a Bible but has good stats and wants to study feminist theology will probably be admitted before you. Before you knock yourself too hard consider the possibility that it wasn't that you didn't meet their "fit" requirement, but that they would have not "fit" for you.

[KreacherKeeper]

I'm finishing my first year at HDS and on top of having top credentials recs and so forth you have to "fit." I would say a lot of the fits are "non-traditional", but they are still specific. For the MTS, Womens Studies in Religion and Queer Theology are the mainstays, half of our student body is gay and I'd say at least 75% would identify themselves as feminist. Are you gay? Are you a feminist? If you answer is no to both of these then your research interest are not aligned with about half of the school. Of the half that are left you have traditional biblical studies and theology and non-Bible related religion focuses. If you want to study something relating to the Bible that isn't feminist or queer you're really applying to about 1/4 of the spots.

I was admitted because I've had some blow your mind experiences at the borders of Christianity Judaism and Islam in addition to having really good stats and recs. But I know I was admitted near the back of the pack because I only got partial funding. As much as it irks me, and you it seems, an unshaven lesbian from Wellesley that's never opened a Bible but has good stats and wants to study feminist theology will probably be admitted before you. Before you knock yourself too hard consider the possibility that it wasn't that you didn't meet their "fit" requirement, but that they would have not "fit" for you.

I actually got very similar advice from one of my prof's when I was deciding if I should 'pay up'. I am not, in any way, shape or form, an uber-feminist, in fact I err more on the traditional side of things. I was told that I need to really talk to folk (like you, so thanks!) that are in the game and see if I would be the 'quiet kid in the back of the room' rather than someone who was participating in in the leading conversations.

I always wonder though who truly decides fit. Is it the professors, really, or is it some mystical adcom? I say this because at my current school, there seem to be a lot of disagreement between who is admitted and what the professors are looking to teach..oh and my current school has lots of uber-everything!

[Phenomenologist]

In our day, when women who have an identical education as men receive only 75% of the pay, why would any educated person in higher-academia (especially at these institutions) *NOT* be a feminist?

[new mexico]

I'm finishing my first year at HDS and on top of having top credentials recs and so forth you have to "fit." I would say a lot of the fits are "non-traditional", but they are still specific. For the MTS, Womens Studies in Religion and Queer Theology are the mainstays, half of our student body is gay and I'd say at least 75% would identify themselves as feminist. Are you gay? Are you a feminist? If you answer is no to both of these then your research interest are not aligned with about half of the school. Of the half that are left you have traditional biblical studies and theology and non-Bible related religion focuses. If you want to study something relating to the Bible that isn't feminist or queer you're really applying to about 1/4 of the spots.

I was admitted because I've had some blow your mind experiences at the borders of Christianity Judaism and Islam in addition to having really good stats and recs. But I know I was admitted near the back of the pack because I only got partial funding. As much as it irks me, and you it seems, an unshaven lesbian from Wellesley that's never opened a Bible but has good stats and wants to study feminist theology will probably be admitted before you. Before you knock yourself too hard consider the possibility that it wasn't that you didn't meet their "fit" requirement, but that they would have not "fit" for you.

that's why I didn't apply to HDS. i've heard the same story over and over from people that have attended HDS. also, i have nothing against queer or feminist theology. as i mentioned in my post earlier, if one is interested in systematic, historical, or philosophical theology, HDS is clearly not even close to being ranked at the top. coming from an anthropological background, I can see, however, why HDS is a perfect fit for numerous individuals that want a more sociocultural, "make-things-up-as-you-go," let's "reinterpret everything" approach to the study of theology and religion. I have nothing against this at all, and I think new ideas should always be welcomed. Also, I can understand why numerous individuals thing\k that this kind of approach is meaningless and, thus, choose not to study at HDS. The beautiful thing about America is that we have so many different choices where / what to study!

Edited March 19, 2011 by new mexico