M.Div at University of Chicago: How does an applicant's gender/religion/race affect application?

[MonkeyPants]

The title says it all. I've applied to University of Chicago's M.Div program (as well as several others) and their application asked about my race, gender, and religious affiliation. I am female, Native American, and Muslim. I would guess that this combination is rather rare- how much do you think this will affect my application?

GPA 3.8 at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (BFA in drawing, painting and printmaking, double minor in theology and writing)

[sacklunch]

It will help, or so I have been told. I know certain schools out here in the NE like to accept "different" students. Where else did you apply?

[sacklunch]

it is a bit disheartening. Being a white male just isn't what it used to be (haha)

[Perique69]

Your gender, race, religion will help you get in. No need to worry unless you're white, male, heterosexual and Xtian.

[11Q13]

Well...if I were you, I would begin my statement of purpose something like: "As a female Native American Muslim..."

[PIraldi]

I'm sorry, if you think being a white male is bad, consider being the "over-represented minority" - Asian men.

[Emma Maroon]

Well...if I were you, I would begin my statement of purpose something like: "As a female Native American Muslim..."

!!! :-) Love it!

[chicagodivstudent]

The only thing to be aware of is making the case that an MDiv with a largely Christian focus and curriculum is a good fit program for you. They'll want you--students with unique backgrounds are vital to a good academic environment, and U Chicago Div is trying hard to expand furthern into Islamic Studies--but don't let that distract the fact that you'll need to push a bit as to why as a Muslim you want to be at U Chicago for an MDiv. If you don't feel like you addressed that in your application, go ahead and call Ms. Lindner or Dean Owens at the Div School and have a conversation about that.

If they know you're serious about the program fitting your goals, I can see no reason why they wouldn't fall over themselves to accept you.

[Lux Lex Pax]

On 1/29/2012 at 3:51 PM, ghost6 said:

Your gender, race, religion will help you get in. No need to worry unless you're white, male, heterosexual and Xtian.

I'm pretty sure whites, males, heterosexuals, and Christians still constitute the majority at most, if not all, seminaries and divinity schools.

[Lux Lex Pax]

Maybe so. But I'm referring to one type of person--white, male, heterosexual and Xtian, not whites and males and heteros and Xtians--at a particular school in response to the OP. Regardless, there's a few schools (Harvard, Chicago, Emory, Union NYC, etc) where the white-male-Hetero-Xtian is not the majority particularly in their PhD programs.

Since not all schools publish statistics about their program composition, it's difficult to figure out whether or not white, male, heterosexual, Christians are indeed a minority. Duke provides the most comprehensive information that I'm aware of. Look here: http://gradschool.du...s/admitrel.htm.

The fulltime enrollment for their Phd programs in 2011-2012 is 64 students. Of those 26 are female, meaning 38 are male. There are only 9 students of color and 15 international students. That means that there are 40 white students out of 64 in the program (I'm also ignoring the fact that some of those international students might be considered "white"). That's around 63% white! Even if we assumed -- unrealistically -- that the white student population is divided equally between genders, that would mean 20 students are white males. That's around 31%! By this measure, white males constitute the single largest group in the Phd program at Duke.

It seems ignorant and misleading to tell someone that they should be "worried" if they are a white male applying for admission when the truth of the matter is this group is well-represented, if not overrepresented. I know some people wistfully reminisce about the day when every mediocre, white, male applicant was accepted to elite programs, but those days are over. Regardless of who you are, you have to be on top of your game.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Lux Lex Pax

[Perique69]

Since not all schools publish statistics about their program composition, it's difficult to figure out whether or not white, male, heterosexual, Christians are indeed a minority. Duke provides the most comprehensive information that I'm aware of. Look here: http://gradschool.du...s/admitrel.htm.

The fulltime enrollment for their Phd programs in 2011-2012 is 64 students. Of those 26 are female, meaning 38 are male. There are only 9 students of color and 15 international students. That means that there are 40 white students out of 64 in the program (I'm also ignoring the fact that some of those international students might be considered "white"). That's around 63% white! Even if we assumed -- unrealistically -- that the white student population is divided equally between genders, that would mean 20 students are white males. That's around 31%! By this measure, white males constitute the single largest group in the Phd program at Duke.

It seems ignorant and misleading to tell someone that they should be "worried" if they are a white male applying for admission when the truth of the matter is this group is well-represented, if not overrepresented. I know some people wistfully reminisce about the day when every mediocre, white, male applicant was accepted to elite programs, but those days are over. Regardless of who you are, you have to be on top of your game.

First, you've cited a school that I did not mention--one that is decidedly not as interested in accepting minorities. I think you're trying to stretch my point to include all or most programs when I've clearly stated that I'm referring to a very few select and highly competitive programs. Duke is not one of them, although I'm aware that Duke is very competitive. Regardless, each of the schools I mentioned have directly told me that they are not as interested in accepting w-m-h-x. They're unapologetic about it, as they should be. It is simply their preference, and for good reason. Never once did I imply or state that a minority accepted to Harvard, Chicago, Union or Emory did not have to be on top of their game. So, I don't know why you'd point out that they need to be. Moreover, it is telling that you assume that "every mediocre, white, male applicant was accepted to elite programs" 10, 20, 30 years ago. If you think it is ignorant and misleading to tell a w-m-h-x that he's at a disadvantage if he applies to the specific schools I mentioned, I can safely conclude that you live under a rock.

[Lux Lex Pax]

First, you've cited a school that I did not mention--one that is decidedly not as interested in accepting minorities. I think you're trying to stretch my point to include all or most programs when I've clearly stated that I'm referring to a very few select and highly competitive programs. Duke is not one of them, although I'm aware that Duke is very competitive. Regardless, each of the schools I mentioned have directly told me that they are not as interested in accepting w-m-h-x. They're unapologetic about it, as they should be. It is simply their preference, and for good reason. Never once did I imply or state that a minority accepted to Harvard, Chicago, Union or Emory did not have to be on top of their game. So, I don't know why you'd point out that they need to be. Moreover, it is telling that you assume that "every mediocre, white, male applicant was accepted to elite programs" 10, 20, 30 years ago. If you think it is ignorant and misleading to tell a w-m-h-x that he's at a disadvantage if he applies to the specific schools I mentioned, I can safely conclude that you live under a rock.

First, I cite Duke because it's the only program that publishes the information necessary to make the kind of assessments that you're making. A second and related point is that I cited an official and public source. You, on the other hand, cited supposed conversations with each school in which each one supposedly told you that they aren't "as interested in accepting w-m-h-x." I'm incredulous, but I'll let others decide whether they think your claims are credible. Anyone can say so-and-so told me this, but unless there are statistics or a statement from an official, public source, I don't buy it. Besides the fact that I find it highly doubtful that each school told you this, this statement still doesn't go to show that w-m-h-x are at a disadvantage. For example, someone at one of these schools might have told you this if the w-m-h-x population was already well-represented. That doesn't mean that they're at a disadvantage. It's also possible that you misinterpreted their lack of interest in your areas of academic interest as a lack of interest in w-m-h-x. I don't think a w-m-h-x interested in post-colonial theology would have as hard a time getting admitted as someone interested in systematic or doctrinal theology. There just isn't a lot interest in the latter. Ultimately, it's a matter of "fit," but "fit" is more about interests than identity. Get the difference?

As for the mediocre comment, I was only quoting -- ironically -- a prominent faculty member at Duke, Stanley Hauerwas. "In a faculty discussion, Hauerwas defended affirmative action by saying, "We hire mediocre M.A. whites every year, why can't we go out and hire mediocre M.A. blacks?" Augustana's president, Hauerwas says, immediately resolved to fire him." See http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/print/0109/feature.html.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Lux Lex Pax

[Perique69]

First, I cite Duke because it's the only program that publishes the information necessary to make the kind of assessments that you're making. A second and related point is that I cited an official and public source. You, on the other hand, cited supposed conversations with each school in which each one supposedly told you that they aren't "as interested in accepting w-m-h-x." I'm incredulous, but I'll let others decide whether they think your claims are credible. Anyone can say so-and-so told me this, but unless there are statistics or a statement from an official, public source, I don't buy it. Besides the fact that I find it highly doubtful that each school told you this, this statement still doesn't go to show that w-m-h-x are at a disadvantage. For example, someone at one of these schools might have told you this if the w-m-h-x population was already well-represented. That doesn't mean that they're at a disadvantage. It's also possible that you misinterpreted their lack of interest in your areas of academic interest as a lack of interest in w-m-h-x. I don't think a w-m-h-x interested in post-colonial theology would have as hard a time getting admitted as someone interested in systematic or doctrinal theology. There just isn't a lot interest in the latter. Ultimately, it's a matter of "fit," but "fit" is more about interests than identity. Get the difference?

As for the mediocre comment, I was only quoting -- ironically -- a prominent faculty member at Duke, Stanley Hauerwas. "In a faculty discussion, Hauerwas defended affirmative action by saying, "We hire mediocre M.A. whites every year, why can't we go out and hire mediocre M.A. blacks?" Augustana's president, Hauerwas says, immediately resolved to fire him." See http://linguafranca....9/feature.html.

Student body stats isn't top-secret or even confidential information. It can be disclosed without naming names, etc. I invite you to look deeper and wider than clicking on Duke's website. You cite merely one "official and public" source for your argument that it is "ignorant and misleading" to tell w-m-h-x that they are at a disadvantage when applying to PhD programs at Harvard, Chicago, Union NYC, and Emory. Interestingly, your lone source comes from none of these schools. Yet you somehow conclude that Duke's stats transfer to these schools as well. So Duke's information about their own students provides us with a reliable source for making conclusions about student bodies at four other schools? I must say that I am incredulous. Another point is that these specific schools (although Emory to a lesser degree) aren't even interested in representing w-m-h-x. Your "well-represented" point is rather credulous if you believe that these four schools are still devoted to representing w-m-h-x. Again, I assume you believe that they are because, of all sources, Duke told you so. It appears that you're offended or put off when anyone claims that white, heterosexual, Xtian males are at a disadvantage. It just can't be, you say! FYI, I didn't query these schools for my own interests. So, there was no misinterpreting.

Edited January 30, 2012 by ghost6

[Lux Lex Pax]

Student body stats isn't top-secret or even confidential information. It can be disclosed without naming names, etc. I invite you to look deeper and wider than clicking on Duke's website. You cite merely one "official and public" source for your argument that it is "ignorant and misleading" to tell w-m-h-x that they are at a disadvantage when applying to PhD programs at Harvard, Chicago, Union NYC, and Emory. Interestingly, your lone source comes from none of these schools. Yet you somehow conclude that Duke's stats transfer to these schools as well. So Duke's information about their own students provides us with a reliable source for making conclusions about student bodies at four other schools? I must say that I am incredulous. Another point is that these specific schools (although Emory to a lesser degree) aren't even interested in representing w-m-h-x. Your "well-represented" point is rather credulous if you believe that these four schools are still devoted to representing w-m-h-x. Again, I assume you believe that they are because, of all sources, Duke told you so. It appears that you're offended or put off when anyone claims that white, heterosexual, Xtian males are at a disadvantage. It just can't be, you say! FYI, I didn't query these schools for my own interests. So, there was no misinterpreting.

Again, you have no verifiable source to support your claims about Harvard, Chicago, Emory, or Union. Merely restating your previous claim doesn't make it true or factual. I cite Duke because they provide actual data. I looked for similar data for the aforementioned schools and couldn't find anything, so I invite you to provide the missing information, since you seem to know so much. Your inability or unwillingness to provide a shred of substantiated and verifiable information makes me wonder whether you're making the whole thing up.

[Perique69]

Again, you have no verifiable source to support your claims about Harvard, Chicago, Emory, or Union. Merely restating your previous claim doesn't make it true or factual. I cite Duke because they provide actual data. I looked for similar data for the aforementioned schools and couldn't find anything, so I invite you to provide the missing information, since you seem to know so much. Your inability or unwillingness to provide a shred of substantiated and verifiable information makes me wonder whether you're making the whole thing up.

Do you use Taco Bell's nutrition chart to calculate the calories in your Big Mac?

[11Q13]

I know this isn't the math forum...but perhaps some of you are overlooking that representation does not correlate to the number of students of a given gender-race-etc makeup in a given program, but to the representation of said groups in the population at large...

Looking at the Duke stats above, and the chart here http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States, the fact that the students are 63% white does not mean that they are overrepresented, but that they are exactly on par with their representation in the general populous. I might also add, it overlooks a slight hunch I have that white males far outnumber other groups in the numbers that apply, meaning that it would actually be more difficult to gain admittance as a white male even granted their proportional representation, or higher head count, at the school.

As far as the makeup at Harvard, by no exaggeration, I would say probably approaching half the HDS student body would identify as something other than heterosexual. I would also say that HDS is, indeed, somewhat desperate for racial diversity. I cannot say most because I don't have the figures, but for example, with the exception of a couple, all of the students studying Buddhism I know are white. We also have an initiative that offers non-white (maybe non-asian also) applicants an all (or at least airfare and lodging) expenses paid visit to HDS, and a waiver of the application fee. The move away from New Testament and Hebrew Bible scholarship to other religions is apparent in the fact that there are several chairs which have gone unfilled after the retirement of professors like Koester, Bovon, Cross, and surely others.

Here were the stats (for the div school, not religion PhD) for the year I matriculated:

MTS: 172

MDiv: 146

ThM: 3

ThD: 41

Female: 53%

Male: 47%

Students of color: 24%

International students: 10%

Average age: 27

Religious affiliations: Approximately 30

Edited January 31, 2012 by 11Q13

[Lux Lex Pax]

I know this isn't the math forum...but perhaps some of you are overlooking that representation does not correlate to the number of students of a given gender-race-etc makeup in a given program, but to the representation of said groups in the population at large...

Looking at the Duke stats above, and the chart here http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States, the fact that the students are 63% white does not mean that they are overrepresented, but that they are exactly on par with their representation in the general populous. I might also add, it overlooks a slight hunch I have that white males far outnumber other groups in the numbers that apply, meaning that it would actually be more difficult to gain admittance as a white male even granted their proportional representation, or higher head count, at the school.

As far as the makeup at Harvard, by no exaggeration, I would say probably approaching half the HDS student body would identify as something other than heterosexual. I would also say that HDS is, indeed, somewhat desperate for racial diversity. I cannot say most because I don't have the figures, but for example, with the exception of a couple, all of the students studying Buddhism I know are white. We also have an initiative that offers non-white (maybe non-asian also) applicants an all (or at least airfare and lodging) expenses paid visit to HDS, and a waiver of the application fee. The move away from New Testament and Hebrew Bible scholarship to other religions is apparent in the fact that there are several chairs which have gone unfilled after the retirement of professors like Koester, Bovon, Cross, and surely others.

Here were the stats (for the div school, not religion PhD) for the year I matriculated:

MTS: 172

MDiv: 146

ThM: 3

ThD: 41

Female: 53%

Male: 47%

Students of color: 24%

International students: 10%

Average age: 27

Religious affiliations: Approximately 30

My only reason for responding to ghost6 was to counter the narrative that white males are at a disadvantage and are discriminated against. It's a narrative that I constantly hear but which isn't actually substantiated by the numbers. Looking at the Harvard Divinity figures you provided, 66% of the student body is white. That doesn't exactly sound like Harvard is waging some war against white males. Moreover, ghost6 portrays Harvard, and other schools, like the promised land for minority students when in fact minorities are only proportionally represented, according to you. I find it highly problematic that mere proportional representation of minority students would elicit such criticisms. Perhaps it suggests something about the psyche of those who claim minorities are taking over. It's depressing that in this day and age equality should be viewed by some as a slight against their race, gender, sexuality, or religion.

[Perique69]

My only reason for responding to ghost6 was to counter the narrative that white males are at a disadvantage and are discriminated against. It's a narrative that I constantly hear but which isn't actually substantiated by the numbers. Looking at the Harvard Divinity figures you provided, 66% of the student body is white. That doesn't exactly sound like Harvard is waging some war against white males. Moreover, ghost6 portrays Harvard, and other schools, like the promised land for minority students when in fact minorities are only proportionally represented, according to you. I find it highly problematic that mere proportional representation of minority students would elicit such criticisms. Perhaps it suggests something about the psyche of those who claim minorities are taking over. It's depressing that in this day and age equality should be viewed by some as a slight against their race, gender, sexuality, or religion.

You have an unending penchant to presume and embellish in order to press your myopic agenda. For example, you've metamorphosed my initial statement so much that I have to conclude that you're no longer talking to me. Additionally, one mistake that you continue to make is believing that numbers undeniably substantiate a claim. Another error is that you keep referring to numbers wholly unrelated to the subject (i.e., Duke, and now, Harvard's MDiv stats). If the four schools in question hand-delivered you the strongest possible evidence, you would create a way (i.e., mentally) to deny it. You really let your cards show with your last two sentences (above). Frankly, I'm fearful that paranoia is getting the best of you. Perhaps some meditative prayer and yoga would help.

[Lux Lex Pax]

You have an unending penchant to presume and embellish in order to press your myopic agenda. For example, you've metamorphosed my initial statement so much that I have to conclude that you're no longer talking to me. Additionally, one mistake that you continue to make is believing that numbers undeniably substantiate a claim. Another error is that you keep referring to numbers wholly unrelated to the subject (i.e., Duke, and now, Harvard's MDiv stats). If the four schools in question hand-delivered you the strongest possible evidence, you would create a way (i.e., mentally) to deny it. You really let your cards show with your last two sentences (above). Frankly, I'm fearful that paranoia is getting the best of you. Perhaps some meditative prayer and yoga would help.

Yes, because anecdote and rumor are much better ways of supporting your claim. FYI, I didn't present the Harvard numbers; I just discussed them, since someone else thought they were useful.

[Perique69]

Yes, because anecdote and rumor are much better ways of supporting your claim. FYI, I didn't present the Harvard numbers; I just discussed them, since someone else thought they were useful.

I certainly have not used anecdote and rumor. Again, these are examples of your denial. Sure you didn't present the Harvard numbers, but you also did not hesitate to use them inappropriately to further your agenda.

[Lux Lex Pax]

I certainly have not used anecdote and rumor. Again, these are examples of your denial. Sure you didn't present the Harvard numbers, but you also did not hesitate to use them inappropriately to further your agenda.

Harvard Phd program: Underrepresented minority students = 9% Females = 44%

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/religion/program/diversity/harvard/7568

U. Chicago Phd program: Underrepresented minority students = 12% Females = 37%

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/religion/program/diversity/uchicago/7580

Emory Phd program: Underrepresented minority students = 17% Females = 55%

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/religion/program/diversity/emory/7564

White males everywhere should be worried. Demz colored folk are takin' our spots! Lol!

I would hope this settles the debate, but I'm sure you'll figure out some way of twisting everything around because it doesn't confirm your firmly-held, preconceived biases. You'll probably still give greater weight to your supposed conversations with each school in which each one supposedly told you they aren't interested in white males, even though the numbers say otherwise. You'll probably also criticize the numbers despite you not providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. But I tried. Sometimes there's just no point trying to reason with crazy.

[Perique69]

Harvard Phd program: Underrepresented minority students = 9% Females = 44%

http://graduate-scho...ty/harvard/7568

U. Chicago Phd program: Underrepresented minority students = 12% Females = 37%

http://graduate-scho...y/uchicago/7580

Emory Phd program: Underrepresented minority students = 17% Females = 55%

http://graduate-scho...sity/emory/7564

White males everywhere should be worried. Demz colored folk are takin' our spots! Lol!

I would hope this settles the debate, but I'm sure you'll figure out some way of twisting everything around because it doesn't confirm your firmly-held, preconceived biases. You'll probably still give greater weight to your supposed conversations with each school in which each one supposedly told you they aren't interested in white males, even though the numbers say otherwise. You'll probably also criticize the numbers despite you not providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. But I tried. Sometimes there's just no point trying to reason with crazy.

Well, kudos for citing something other than Duke's website. To be fair, the website you cited is somewhat reliable; however, it does not disclose sexual preference or religious affiliation. Remember I'm not referring merely to "white males" but white-heterosexual-Christian-males specifically within PhD religion programs at these schools. Harvard and Chicago (and possibly Emory) include stats on master-level and PhD students within religion as well as school-wide stats. So it isn't clear that these numbers strictly represent PhD in religion. Regardless, this point is moot because, like I said, none of these statistics tell us sexual preference and religious affiliation. What were you saying about twisting information to confirm your own biases?

[Lux Lex Pax]

Well, kudos for citing something other than Duke's website. To be fair, the website you cited is somewhat reliable; however, it does not disclose sexual preference or religious affiliation. Remember I'm not referring merely to "white males" but white-heterosexual-Christian-males specifically within PhD religion programs at these schools. Harvard and Chicago (and possibly Emory) include stats on master-level and PhD students within religion as well as school-wide stats. So it isn't clear that these numbers strictly represent PhD in religion. Regardless, this point is moot because, like I said, none of these statistics tell us sexual preference and religious affiliation. What were you saying about twisting information to confirm your own biases?

None of these schools ask applicants to supply religious affiliation or sexual orientation information. However, all of them did have a section on their applications, if I remember correctly, where one could choose to identify himself in a racial/ethnic group and provide gender information. Without knowing this information, how can these schools possibly discriminate in favor of or against any group with regard to religion or sexual orientation?

Like I stated previously in this discussion, at this point it becomes a matter of fit. In other words, it's about interests, not identity. Yes, these schools prefer individuals working on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and other identity issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one's interests and identity must align. For example, many of the faculty at the schools we've been discussing are white, heterosexual males -- just look at the links I previously provided or wander around their websites and look at the faculty profiles; there's no surfeit of minorities on those faculties.

My advice if you're a white male -- and to everyone else for that matter -- applying to Phd. programs is to apply to programs where your interests fit well with the interests of the faculty. Otherwise, your chances of admission are incredibly slim. It should go without saying but don't apply to places like Harvard or Union unless you want to write about feminist, liberationist, or post-colonial issues.

[Perique69]

None of these schools ask applicants to supply religious affiliation or sexual orientation information. However, all of them did have a section on their applications, if I remember correctly, where one could choose to identify himself in a racial/ethnic group and provide gender information. Without knowing this information, how can these schools possibly discriminate in favor of or against any group with regard to religion or sexual orientation?

Like I stated previously in this discussion, at this point it becomes a matter of fit. In other words, it's about interests, not identity. Yes, these schools prefer individuals working on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and other identity issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one's interests and identity must align. For example, many of the faculty at the schools we've been discussing are white, heterosexual males -- just look at the links I previously provided or wander around their websites and look at the faculty profiles; there's no surfeit of minorities on those faculties.

My advice if you're a white male -- and to everyone else for that matter -- applying to Phd. programs is to apply to programs where your interests fit well with the interests of the faculty. Otherwise, your chances of admission are incredibly slim. It should go without saying but don't apply to places like Harvard or Union unless you want to write about feminist, liberationist, or post-colonial issues.

They don't require them to supply that information on the official application. They still ask for it, however. More importantly, they don't accept PhD applicants without interviewing them. For example, Emory's "interview weekend" is a rather intimate two day gathering, where they "get to know" applicants in person. In some cases where an applicant can't travel for an interview, an in-depth phone interview occurs. Also, more often than not, applicants reveal such information in their statement of purpose and/or the interview particularly when they believe such disclosure will be advantageous. Do you really believe that these schools are willing to spend five plus years and tens of thousands of dollars on PhD students without knowing more about them than just the information on the "official" application? "Fit" also means, to these schools, personality and relational ability among other interpersonal and social factors. "Fit" is by no means limited merely to academic interests.

It's your assumption (and wish) that "fit" has nothing to do with identity. Your point that there's white male faculty at each of these schools is meaningless to this discussion. Out of curiosity though, how do you know that many of the male faculty are heterosexual?

Does your advice apply equally, for example, to a homosexual Unitarian white male and a heterosexual Southern Baptist white male? Both applicants are interested in feminism's influence on "theological thinking" in the 1980's. Both of them want to attend Harvard and work with Professors Diana Eck and Leila Ahmed.

Edited February 1, 2012 by ghost6

[MsBOOM]

Jumping into the conversation, I'm just going to go ahead and say that I played the Pakistani Muslim Female card HARD in my applications. You gotta do what you gotta do!

(Although, I will say that I also had a 3.83 GPA, wonderful LOR's, great writing sample, and pretty good SOP... I did, however, bomb the GRE's...)

Edited February 27, 2012 by MsSarahBOOM