Rationale Behind HDS Acceptances/Rejections

[new mexico]

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?

I'm not sure how to answer this question. I guess I'm a "feminist" to the extent that I think everyone should have equal opportunities and should be equally compensated (though, honestly, I think this ideology can be traced further back than feminism); however, I'm not very keen on a 100% feminist approach, generally speaking, to anything much in the same way i'm not keen on a pure Marxist, structural, or functionalist approach to all things academic. I think there needs to be a balance.

[new mexico]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying anything negative about HDS or the people that study there. All i'm saying is that we need to realize that different schools cater to different audiences, and that's the beauty of choosing where to study.

[Phenomenologist]

[...] also, i have nothing against queer or feminist theology. [...] 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!

You have "nothing against it," but you describe it as "make-things-up-as-you-go"? I don't think they would describe it that way.

The idiom is true: "History is written by the victors." And by extension, "Theology is written by the privileged." So these projects are simply a recovery of lost theological voices: women, ethnic minorities, the poor, etc. It's hardly "make-things-up-as-you-go."

[new mexico]

You have "nothing against it," but you describe it as "make-things-up-as-you-go"? I don't think they would describe it that way.

The idiom is true: "History is written by the victors." And by extension, "Theology is written by the privileged." So these projects are simply a recovery of lost theological voices: women, ethnic minorities, the poor, etc. It's hardly "make-things-up-as-you-go."

I apologize, and I agree that we should recover lost voices. Heck, I want to become a physician one day to help the poor, the ethnic minorities, etc. I come from a background (besides anthropology) of many, many, many science courses, so I still view these endeavors in theology, anthropology, philosophy, etc., as really just putting a different spin on topics we can never REALLY know the answer to like, say, catabolism of glucose through glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation. Thus, the "making-it-up-as-we-go." I'm all for recovering lost voices, so long as we remember that we can't stamp "fact" on these different voices (including what is considered "normative"), which is what many academicians do or, at the very least, disparage individuals when they disagree with ideas or concepts which are just that, "ideas and concepts".

Like I said, I don't have any problem with different ideas. I hold no paradigm as sacred. What I do hold sacred, though, is being able to distinguish between fact and fiction, to the best of our limited capabilities. It's just good to remember that, in the end, a lot of this esoteric stuff shouldn't be taken as "this is the way it is!" as much as it should be cherished as giving a voice to the people that have been voiceless, which I think is very cool.

Edited March 19, 2011 by new mexico

[Phenomenologist]

I come from a background (besides anthropology) of many, many, many science courses, so I still view these endeavors in theology, anthropology, philosophy, etc., as really just putting a different spin on topics we can never REALLY know the answer to like, say, catabolism of glucose through glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation. Thus, the "making-it-up-as-we-go." I'm all for recovering lost voices, so long as we remember that we can't stamp "fact" on these different voices (including what is considered "normative"), which is what many academicians do or, at the very least, disparage individuals when they disagree with ideas or concepts which are just that, "ideas and concepts".

I come from a philosophy major, where we know better than to think that science is any more "objective" than the humanities that are supposedly "merely subjective." As Nietzsche said, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

You may be interested in reading philosopher-of-science, Thomas Kuhn. He popularized the term "paradigm shift," and demonstrates that despite science's pretensions to say otherwise, it's no more "objective" than other discourses. Even in the sciences, we're discussing "ideas and concepts." We view the world through a paradigm, which shapes and informs our observation of "the facts." But after a while, we shift to a new paradigm, where all of "the facts" change. It's really fascinating stuff, you should check read that brief summary at that link.

[new mexico]

I come from a philosophy major, where we know better than to think that science is any more "objective" than the humanities that are supposedly "merely subjective." As Nietzsche said, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

You may be interested in reading philosopher-of-science, Thomas Kuhn. He popularized the term "paradigm shift," and demonstrates that despite science's pretensions to say otherwise, it's no more "objective" than other discourses. Even in the sciences, we're discussing "ideas and concepts." We view the world through a paradigm, which shapes and informs our observation of "the facts." But after a while, we shift to a new paradigm, where all of "the facts" change. It's really fascinating stuff, you should check read that brief summary at that link.

I totally don't think scientists are objective and that science is the be all end all, but at least some concepts can be tested (there isn't too much that's subjective with glucose conception, or the 1st / 2nd line of defense concerning TB or worse, MDR-TB...of course, what you and Kuhn are referring to are theoretical questions concerning phenomena we are still trying to comprehend). I wrote a paper on Kuhn's concept of incommensurability from that book. (You may be interested in the many critiques of Kuhn's book. I love most of what he has to say, but there's a lot to take issue with too.) I'm just saying that all too often the humanities are recapitulating to the hegemony of science and act like this somehow means something, but then there is no ability to test the concepts. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more. I'm a huge fan of Paul Farmer, and I think we should do ALL that we can to give a voice to the voiceless. Some people want to study theology from the standpoint of how it's been studied for a long, long time; others want to study it from a different perspective. The diversity is great. Of course, trying to see the past through the subaltern's perspective (yes, I'm referring to Spivak here) is great, but it is also inherently subjective. Of course, archaeology may corroborate some ideas, but it is still inherently subjective. And, of course, we have to remember this. It is subjective in a very different way than many subjective subjects are in science (specifically, different origins topics and quantum topics). Clearly, we're talking past each other, and I apologize if I was unclear concerning my original point. So, i'll leave this conversation since it isn't really going anywhere because we really do agree with importance of studying from the perspective of the subaltern.

Edited March 19, 2011 by new mexico

[Thanks4Downvoting]

I'm upper middle class male from a big southern state school. The southern state school might make me somewhat different from other applicants, but theologically speaking, I'm interested in postcolonial hermeneutics and wrote a lot about social justice in my SoP. That's what made it a good fit for me though. Idk. I'm really lucky to get the package I did.

[new mexico]

I'm upper middle class male from a big southern state school. The southern state school might make me somewhat different from other applicants, but theologically speaking, I'm interested in postcolonial hermeneutics and wrote a lot about social justice in my SoP. That's what made it a good fit for me though. Idk. I'm really lucky to get the package I did.

social justice rocks! that's why i'm going to study at BU !!

[Trin]

I come from a philosophy major, where we know better than to think that science is any more "objective" than the humanities that are supposedly "merely subjective." As Nietzsche said, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

You may be interested in reading philosopher-of-science, Thomas Kuhn. He popularized the term "paradigm shift," and demonstrates that despite science's pretensions to say otherwise, it's no more "objective" than other discourses. Even in the sciences, we're discussing "ideas and concepts." We view the world through a paradigm, which shapes and informs our observation of "the facts." But after a while, we shift to a new paradigm, where all of "the facts" change. It's really fascinating stuff, you should check read that brief summary at that link.

Oh, phenomenologist, I want to have your thought babies. :-) Kuhn! I heart him. And of course, Kuhn tells us that that tenured professors are the standardbearers of the existing paradigm, and shifts come from the graduate students, TA's, and the untenured. :-) Kuhn's ideas have certainly played out in the fields of religious scholarship over the past 200 years.

[Phenomenologist]

I apologize, and I agree that we should recover lost voices. Heck, I want to become a physician one day to help the poor, the ethnic minorities, etc.

No problem, I understand what you mean now . Sounds like you have great plans to practice medicine, I hope that works out! You'll have a great interdisciplinary background.

Oh, phenomenologist, I want to have your thought babies.

Thought babies, LOL -- that's a new one . Thanks, I enjoy Kuhn as well (as is obvious). But I like postmodern hermeneutics generally. And postcolonial!

[Trin]

Thought babies, LOL -- that's a new one . Thanks, I enjoy Kuhn as well (as is obvious). But I like postmodern hermeneutics generally. And postcolonial!

Yeah, I'd have to say I'm pretty solidly a fan myself -- something that's been nurtured by my department's slight bias that direction, largely from the echoes of Ken Kramer's influence there.

[new mexico]

Kuhn IS great, specifically his book on the Copernican revolution!

Postcolonial theory, eh? a month ago, my school hosted Walter Mignolo of Duke U. for two days for lectures and workshops. He was so cool, and super smart! I got coffee w/ him!

[11Q13]

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?

because that is a myth.

[11Q13]

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!

well the benefit of HDS is that it's Harvard of course, and we are encouraged to cross-register. All the courses in the philosophy department, the NELC department, classics, etc etc are all fair game. And if you can't find it here, BTI usually covers it, or independent study. A lot of these classes are cross-registered with the div school, so while the div schools offerings may be more focused on other stuff, I've agonized each semester about not being able to fit in all the amazing classes I want to take...I'm presently taking 5 + an audit.

[Phenomenologist]

because that is a myth.

How so? It's pretty elementary sociology.

[new mexico]

because that is a myth.

i think 11Q13 may be correct concerning different disciplines w/in academia (e.g., i believe females comprise 60% of academic anthropologist, and receive a similar pay as male academic anthropologists); however, in the general workforce, I think it is well-known that men are paid a bit more than females for the same occupation.

Edited March 21, 2011 by new mexico

[11Q13]

How so? It's pretty elementary sociology.

The wage gap is one of those arbitrary statistics that is regurgitated ad infiitum by feminists and the like until it enters the popular conscience as reality. 75%? where does that conveniently round figure come from? How do you imagine this wage gap would be implemented or sustained? you're right that the "wage gap" is elementary but probably not the kind of elementary you're thinking of. Any difference in pay is the result of the different choices men and women have tendencies to make with respect to their jobs, and this has been demonstrated again and again in real research. I'm surprised you didn't apply to Harvard!

http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf

[Phenomenologist]

In the year 2000, an average full-time, year-round employed male college graduate over the age of twenty-five earne $72,665, and his female counterpart earned $49,835. In 2007, he earned $70,401, and his female counterpart earned $50,398. (U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables--People.) (This is simply copied from my sociology textbook.)

Difference in pay is not simply "the result of different choices" people make. Statistically across the board, women make less than men for the same jobs. Another interesting stat: women who wear makeup are paid more than women who do not.

And I'm sure you think racial minorities simply need to "pick themselves up by their boostraps," right?

[atypicalcandidate]

While discrimination definitely exists and does impact pay in a negative way, the reasons for the differences in pay between men and women are complex and are related to lifestyle choices, at least in part:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392

http://www.msnbc.msn...ness-forbescom/

http://money.cnn.com...veryday/sahadi/

In the year 2000, an average full-time, year-round employed male college graduate over the age of twenty-five earne $72,665, and his female counterpart earned $49,835. In 2007, he earned $70,401, and his female counterpart earned $50,398. (U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables--People.) (This is simply copied from my sociology textbook.)

Difference in pay is not simply "the result of different choices" people make. Statistically across the board, women make less than men for the same jobs. Another interesting stat: women who wear makeup are paid more than women who do not.

And I'm sure you think racial minorities simply need to "pick themselves up by their boostraps," right?

[Phenomenologist]

While discrimination definitely exists and does impact pay in a negative way, the reasons for the differences in pay between men and women are complex and are related to lifestyle choices, at least in part:

It's certainly true that "it's complicated," and complex. And I don't want to be reductive and say it's exclusively and solely based on gender differences. I simply wanted to point out that it is no "myth" that women make much less than men across the board, all things being equal.

[atypicalcandidate]

That is fine, but the evidence you provided did not adequately support your point.

It's certainly true that "it's complicated," and complex. And I don't want to be reductive and say it's exclusively and solely based on gender differences. I simply wanted to point out that it is no "myth" that women make much less than men across the board, all things being equal.

[Phenomenologist]

That is fine, but the evidence you provided did not adequately support your point.

It certainly may not be "adequate," but what's "adequate" will vary. We're only on casual message boards, so I'm not rallying peer-reviewed articles to do a thesis here. But the U.S. Census Bureau data isn't wholly inadequate for our purposes. We can bicker about an "adequate" amount of support, but it remains the case that generally speaking, women make less than men, all other things being equal.

The Census data isn't merely comparing "men" and "women." It's men and women who both (1) work full time, (2) are year-round employed, (3) have college degrees, and (4) are over the age of twenty-five. So, the data is at least narrowing it down.

But again, people can debate over what's "adequate" all day, so I'll just drop my point with you here .

[Tahuds]

It certainly may not be "adequate," but what's "adequate" will vary. We're only on casual message boards, so I'm not rallying peer-reviewed articles to do a thesis here. But the U.S. Census Bureau data isn't wholly inadequate for our purposes. We can bicker about an "adequate" amount of support, but it remains the case that generally speaking, women make less than men, all other things being equal.

The Census data isn't merely comparing "men" and "women." It's men and women who both (1) work full time, (2) are year-round employed, (3) have college degrees, and (4) are over the age of twenty-five. So, the data is at least narrowing it down.

But again, people can debate over what's "adequate" all day, so I'll just drop my point with you here .

I'm not sure if you are being coherent in your argumentation. Earlier in the conversation you claim all things being equal men make more than women. Above you seem to have an issue with the attempt to define a roughly "equal" set of data, those who (1) work full time, (2) are year-round employed, (3) have college degrees, and (4) are over the age of twenty-five.

I think your reasoning falls apart at the application of specific data sets and relies upon obfuscation of the heart of the issue; equal compensation for equal work. As was clearly stated in the labor department report, in the US at least, there is a clear trend for an arbitrary woman in the data set to receive less pay than an arbitrary man, but this is due to a number of factors. No least of which is the fact that women, again on average, received more non-pay compensation from a company and furthermore seek out positions that offer that sort of compensation over positions with higher pay but less non-pay compensation.

The problem is not, and never has been about equal pay, because of the aforementioned reasons. We need to be more careful in our thought than that, and focus on the harder to define and quantify but more useful metric of total compensation.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Tahuds

[Phenomenologist]

As was clearly stated in the labor department report, in the US at least, there is a clear trend for an arbitrary woman in the data set to receive less pay than an arbitrary man, but this is due to a number of factors. No least of which is the fact that women, again on average, received more non-pay compensation from a company and furthermore seek out positions that offer that sort of compensation over positions with higher pay but less non-pay compensation.

Hm, intresting -- I'm completely ignorant of this information, which would definitely give a different account. So it would definitely require more nuance, absolutely.

Earlier in the conversation you claim all things being equal men make more than women. Above you seem to have an issue with the attempt to define a roughly "equal" set of data, those who (1) work full time, (2) are year-round employed, (3) have college degrees, and (4) are over the age of twenty-five.

That being said, I can't help but roll my eyes at a primitivist reading of my phrase "all things being equal." Of course, I'm painting with broad brush strokes: under no circumstances are all things ever equal . So, I guess throw me a bone -- follow Nicholas Wolterstorff's principle of "charitable readings" . (If I understand you correctly)

[Tahuds]

Hm, intresting -- I'm completely ignorant of this information, which would definitely give a different account. So it would definitely require more nuance, absolutely.

That being said, I can't help but roll my eyes at a primitivist reading of my phrase "all things being equal." Of course, I'm painting with broad brush strokes: under no circumstances are all things ever equal . So, I guess throw me a bone -- follow Nicholas Wolterstorff's principle of "charitable readings" . (If I understand you correctly)

The linked PDF contained the information I referenced, but it was located in an unreliable source, or at least to me a source that appeared to be using the report in a biased way. I'm including a link to the report here from a less unknown source.