Religion PhD Rankings/Tiers

[mystic rose]

I understand that US News doesn't rank religion or theology programs like it does other fields. However, I'm curious as to people's thoughts on which schools are at the top and which would be tier 2 of 3 schools. I came across this list http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/M ... ograms.htm , but it's clearly old.

Btw, I do realize that religion PhD programs are not in as clear cut of tiers as law schools are, but I do understand that some are better than others (the better presumably Harvard, Yale, UChicago).

[thumbnail72]

I'd check out this: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=447

And also this: http://graduate-school.phds.org/ranking ... priorities

[mystic rose]

I have seen the First Things article. But really, Catholic University over Harvard and Yale? Nothing against CUA, but I don't buy that. I think the author ranks programs more according to theological conservatism than strength of program (resources available to current students, funding, number of graduates in tenure track jobs, etc.).

[thumbnail72]

Perhaps, mystic rose. But, rather than "conservatism", I think he's merely ranking those theology programs theologically. Those other things you mentioned he might not have considered are certainly important but they would seem to be less of a factor in a theological ranking of programs, an approach to ranking obviously of particular (and, hopefully, primary) interest to future theologians. Hence, CUA over Harvard because the former has a theological faculty the whole of which for whom the existence of God is not an open question, unlike the latter. :wink: See what I mean? Peace.

[slick]

since when is belief in god a prerequisite for academic strength in the study of theology? it's academia, not the vatican.

[studyordie]

Theological orientation is going to alter rankings for each individual applicant, but one factor that ought to be considered apart from such orientations is the ability to leave somewhere and then get a job in the open market. That is what I think Reno's article (First Things) really fails to consider. I like that our discipline doesn't have a universally respected system of rankings analogous to Leiter's lists for philosophy because it makes it more likely that authority within the discipline will rest upon those with the best ideas and not the best pedigree. Or in other words, it reduces bullshit. Not that this will ever be eradicated, but we are better off when reputations are not crystallized and the mystery of "who's on top" is left for those who are willing to do the leg work and figure it out according to their own criteria.

[thumbnail72]

I guess the question is one of what one views the telos of a theological education to be. If, like me, one takes the vocational/academic ultimately to be subject to the doxological (specifically with regards to the Triune God named in Nicea), then such a one will rank say, Harvard with respect to CUA, somewhat differently than one for whom general academic prestige is the deciding factor. This is not to say that the vocational/academic isn't infused with the doxological; indeed, my point is precisely that such is the case. Where one goes to school and the purpose for which one does so is theologically significant, all the way down. But, of course, I'm a Dukie and student of Stanley, so you might expect me to say such things. :wink:

[thekidisalright]

I take your point thumbnail, but I don't think these categories--academic and doxological--can be stretched too far. For instance, I tried to rank in order of quality of scholarship, something which I think encapsulates the two. I think that its a little unfair (I'm not saying you're doing this, but Reno certainly does) to conflate conservative with orthodox and liberal with heretical. The question is to what extent one thinks theology is different than catechesis, and how one names this difference. If they are equal than only a few schools are truly theological and others are mere charades. If, however, theology is living and active, interpretive and creative, (wherever on the spectrum we put it, and however we understand it as bounded by the tradition) then there is a certain way in which theology can fail by being too conservative (that is, stagnant and catechetical) or too liberal. Harvard may truly be a place that is antagonistic to the tradition, I don't know too much about the program. But I find Reno's dismissal of Marquette, Fordham, and SLU for being "stuck in the 70s"--that is, focusing on liberation theology, Rahner, feminism--to be kind of ridiculous. None of these ideas challenges Nicea (at least, as they are in these schools, though certainly there are some strange feminist Christologies out there!), and none of their espousers critique the tradition by prioritizing academic prestige over doxological work, but critique it from within precisely for the sake of the tradition and for the sake of the Church. I guess what I'm saying thumbnail, is I think you're distinction is quite helpful, but I'm not sure how many schools would really be weeded out based on being too "academic" (perhaps Harvard?), and that I think Reno uses this type of language just to describe any school that professes any theology he doesn't agree with (even when it is produced by the faithful, to the faithful, etc.). Can we really say that merely because we find a school to be more liberal than we are that it is not "doxological"? Reno seems to think we can and should, which I think is problematic regardless of what side of the fence we are on.

[thumbnail72]

I don't think we disagree, eskidd. Nice addendum.

[thekidisalright]

Awesome!

::picks fight elsewhere::

[waitingtoexhale]

Though ranking programs theologically might be a valuable project, and one that would yield different results than a ranking on prestige, quality of scholarship, or a variety of other factors, Reno's list is definitely biased. All you have to do is read anything Reno has written in First Things to realize that this man is not more than merely conservative (that is, perhaps, looking for programs which maintain a respect for the tradition even while they might critique it). Whether you agree with him or not, if you place his opinions in the spectrum of the theological academy right now, I'd venture to say he would be in the rightest five percent. (For example, notice that an instance of the decline of Yale "intellectually" is adherence to feminism; also, did anyone see his recent comments about the historical critical method? I think any method or ideology should be held in some mutually critical relationship with the tradition, but when someone sees the mere presence of these ideas as decline, I think we should be wary about their judgment of the the academic study of theology in the US--at least wary of its neutrality or representativeness). Anyhow, that perspective should be taken in consideration. If you LOVE Reno's work, and think the academy as a whole is too liberal, than I would definitely follow his rankings in picking a school.

I also think Reno's rankings are deeply problematic. For one, his criteria for judgment is clearly not objective in the least. And he places such an emphasis on religious faith, which is subjective and differs for every doctoral student. While Reno's theological position influences his rankings in one way, a liberal or a postliberal, or a neo-orthodox, or a mainliner, or an emergent (I think you get the idea) may have a completely different set of rankings. The National Research Council rankings try to be both quantitative and objective by using criteria like the things mystic_rose and studyordie mentioned: resources available to current students, quality of academic scholarship produced by the faculty, job placement for students, etc. Even the few times Reno doesn't make judgments based on his theological and confessional leanings, his critiques are not very credible. For example, his criticism of faculty inaccessibility at U. Chicago is based less on facts and more on hearsay from a handful of his students.

I guess the question is one of what one views the telos of a theological education to be. If, like me, one takes the vocational/academic ultimately to be subject to the doxological (specifically with regards to the Triune God named in Nicea), then such a one will rank say, Harvard with respect to CUA, somewhat differently than one for whom general academic prestige is the deciding factor. This is not to say that the vocational/academic isn't infused with the doxological; indeed, my point is precisely that such is the case. Where one goes to school and the purpose for which one does so is theologically significant, all the way down. But, of course, I'm a Dukie and student of Stanley, so you might expect me to say such things. :wink:

While the telos of a theological orientation may be doxological, I don't think the telos of a doctoral education is necessarily so. I think we need to differentiate between a theological and a doctoral education. In a lot of masters-level work at divinity schools, seminaries, and the like, the theological education is both academically and spiritually oriented. A masters-level student may be looking for an education that is both intellectually challenging and spiritually invigorating. The strengthening of both intellect and faith is apt for a wide range of students, some of whom want to teach in the academy and others who want to serve and lead in the church (or some other kind of faith-based organization). Whereas, the telos of a doctoral education is oriented toward the academy and intellectual growth. While I am certainly hoping for spiritual growth and the strengthening of faith in my doctoral education in religion, I am not looking directly to my university or faculty to provide or nurture it for me. The role of the university is to provide ample and interdisciplinary opportunities to study, research, and teach. The role of the faculty is to nurture academic development by providing insightful guidance in the dissertation process, holding office hours for student inquiries, leading robust graduate seminars in topics of interest, etc. Even if I were to be pursuing doctoral work in chemistry, history, or philosophy instead of religion, where I go to school and the purpose for which I go would be theologically significant because of my personal faith commitments. But I am wary of judging or evaluating doctoral programs in religion based on subjective faith criteria just because it is the study of religion.