Baylor Univ. PhD NT

[RD_Paul]

What do people think of Baylor for NT studies? Opinions seem to vary so much that it's difficult to nail down. My sense is that most people think they are either at or nearing a "First-Tier" school, especially with the hiring of Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Does anyone else have any insight?

[Joseph45]

For some people Baylor is a perfect fit, but the thought would never enter my mind to describe it as "First-Tier." Go there becaue it's right for you, but not under the premise that it's "first-tier"

[MBIGrad]

That sounds like good advice. Between Longenecker, Parsons, and Gaventa, along with "ancillary" Church History faculty (e.g., Willams; the school draws quite a line between these disciplines, which is lamentable) Baylor certainly has a top-notch NT program, depending on one's interests. As with any school, fit is determined by where you want to go, etc... Speaking of Baylor as "Tier-1" may be helpful if that term is understood to mean 1) most of their NT graduates get good jobs, 2) their funding is on par with other top programs, and/or 3) their faculty and alumni are active in important and interesting discussions going on today. I would say all of these, in general, imply a "Tier-1" school and all are true of Baylor; I would have no problem considering it "Tier-1." But if it isn't a good fit, or if you want to have the academic mobility afforded by a non-Christian school, it may as well be Tier-158.

 

PS NT is fairly central to my areas of interest and the reasons I have not applied to Baylor are 1) they draw too much distinction between NT and Church History, 2) their NT program is focused on NT and less on "NT within the Roman World" than other programs, and 3) I was told that were I to get a 98%/70% on Verbal/Math on the GRE, I would be given an application fee waiver; I scored higher than this on both and was not given a waiver because the faculty had made assumptions about my interests given my academic background. It's just as well, because I ended up eliminating all schools with real religious affiliations off my application list (Duke, Emory, Baylor, ND).

Edited February 3, 2014 by MBIGrad

[btb34]

PS NT is fairly central to my areas of interest and the reasons I have not applied to Baylor are 1) they draw too much distinction between NT and Church History,

MBIgrad, would you mind elaborating a little more on this claim?

Edited February 3, 2014 by btb34

[Joseph45]

I'm biased as much as the next person, but Baylor is enough of a Christian/Baptist school that I couldn't consider it belonging to the category of "first-tier."

 

Maybe I'm confused, but I think that a lot of people at what I would consider top tier places (e.g., Chicago, Yale, Princeton) would not consider someone from Baylor to be their peer. It's not so much that they'd think of the Baylor student as second-tier as much as they would think of that person as probably theologically oriented and somewhat conservative (compared to them). That's why it seems weird to me to consider it "first tier." Again, if you want that type of training, that's great. But it seems something else to me than top tier.

[Kuriakos]

I'm biased as much as the next person, but Baylor is enough of a Christian/Baptist school that I couldn't consider it belonging to the category of "first-tier."

 

Maybe I'm confused, but I think that a lot of people at what I would consider top tier places (e.g., Chicago, Yale, Princeton) would not consider someone from Baylor to be their peer. It's not so much that they'd think of the Baylor student as second-tier as much as they would think of that person as probably theologically oriented and somewhat conservative (compared to them). That's why it seems weird to me to consider it "first tier." Again, if you want that type of training, that's great. But it seems something else to me than top tier.

 

Baylor is very similar to Duke in terms of how "theological" or "conservative" it is. If you are basing your opinion of the Religion department on how the university markets itself to potential undergraduates, then you are not going to have an accurate picture of the department. There are no statements of faith to sign or anything like that, and I've never been pressured to maintain some particular definition of Christian orthodoxy. I fit in well at UNC/Duke (Bart was one of my favorite professors) and I fit in well at Baylor. Take from that what you will. 

[Lux Lex Pax]

Gaventa is a big name in the field, so I'm sure her presence will bolster Baylor's standing. With that said, I think Baylor's peers are places like Rice, SMU, and Marquette. I don't see Baylor students competing for the same jobs as graduates of Yale, Princeton, Duke, etc.

[Joseph45]

Baylor is very similar to Duke in terms of how "theological" or "conservative" it is. If you are basing your opinion of the Religion department on how the university markets itself to potential undergraduates, then you are not going to have an accurate picture of the department. There are no statements of faith to sign or anything like that, and I've never been pressured to maintain some particular definition of Christian orthodoxy. I fit in well at UNC/Duke (Bart was one of my favorite professors) and I fit in well at Baylor. Take from that what you will. 

I pretty much think of Baylor NT students as people who didn't get into Duke NT.

[MBIGrad]

NT and Church History departments at Baylor overlap little, and thus NT is not formally situated for study under the auspices of "Church History." Practically, if an applicant expresses interest in both departments it may hurt his/her application because you apply to one or the other, which is odd for someone studying early Christianity. This is not speculation; this is what I've been told by two senior faculty members at Baylor. 

[Kuriakos]

I pretty much think of Baylor NT students as people who didn't get into Duke NT.

 

This comment seems to contradict your previous comment...

[Joseph45]

If you could spell out to me exactly how I seem to be contradicting myself, I'll try to respond.

[Kuriakos]

If you could spell out to me exactly how I seem to be contradicting myself, I'll try to respond.

 

Do you consider Duke to be too "Christian" to be considered a "first tier" institution? Moreover, the comment that students at school X are people who didn't get in to Duke is virtually meaningless since Duke's low acceptance rate means that probably the majority of students at undisputed top-tier institutions are also people who didn't get in to Duke. Anyway, I feel zero need to defend the idea that Baylor is "top tier." The fact is that Baylor graduates usually get TT jobs but in small liberal arts colleges not in top schools. LLP I think is right that Baylor students aren't getting the same jobs as the classic first tier schools. I also agree with MBIGrad that the absence of Late Antiquity/Early Christianity faculty is a major drawback. All that to say, there are good reasons for someone to think that Baylor is not the right place for them, but Baylor supposedly being "conservative" is not one of them.

[Joseph45]

Do you consider Duke to be too "Christian" to be considered a "first tier" institution? Moreover, the comment that students at school X are people who didn't get in to Duke is virtually meaningless since Duke's low acceptance rate means that probably the majority of students at undisputed top-tier institutions are also people who didn't get in to Duke. Anyway, I feel zero need to defend the idea that Baylor is "top tier." The fact is that Baylor graduates usually get TT jobs but in small liberal arts colleges not in top schools. LLP I think is right that Baylor students aren't getting the same jobs as the classic first tier schools. I also agree with MBIGrad that the absence of Late Antiquity/Early Christianity faculty is a major drawback. All that to say, there are good reasons for someone to think that Baylor is not the right place for them, but Baylor supposedly being "conservative" is not one of them.

 

Alright, fair enough. I guess I think that Duke is fundamentally committed to academic ideals more than it is committed to Christian ideals, even if many of its faculty and students incline to relatively conservative positions (and the PhD is not housed exclusively in the Div School). That's why I'd be willing to put Duke in the top tier category, and not Baylor. 

 

It's cheap of me to say that I think of Baylor students as those who didn't get into Duke, I'll admit. Still, however, I doubt many people turn down Duke for Baylor, and Duke's not really looking to hire Baylor grads. Ergo, Baylor's not top tier.

 

You don't think of Baylor as markedly conservative though? Not any more so than Duke? I'd be interested what other people. I could easily be in the minority position.

 

And this is an honest question, would Baylor hire someone who is openly (and unapologetically) gay? Duke certainly would and has. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing this would be much more of a problem at Baylor (and a good reason not to go to Baylor).

[Joseph45]

One more thing, I think it gets more confusing (at least for me) because we're talking about Duke's NT program, but that's hard to separate entirely from the PhD program in religion as a whole, which is co-sponsored by the Div School and the Department of Religion.

 

So, even if you're Christian and lean conservative (as defined by someone at Princeton let's say) and you see Duke NT as a place that would be good for you because of Hays et al., you still end up probably taking classes from people who are far, far less Christian and conservative than you would at Baylor. For example, I know she's retired now, but Liz Clark was at Duke and a lot of NT students took her classes. I can't see someone like her being at Baylor. Maybe I'm wrong though. I don't know that much about Baylor people.

[sacklunch]

Coming from a non-Christian point of view, but having studied at both flagship Catholic and Protestant schools (Duke being one), I have no problem saying that Duke is, at least in the area of all things "Christian," fairly conservative. It's not so bad that if you are non-Christian you feel pressured to "convert," but it's the kind of environment, mostly due to the Divinity School, that you truly feel like an outsider if you're not Christian, usually of the Protestant variety. This has caused a lot of tension between the Div School and the Dept of Religion (BTW now officially called the Dept. of Religious Studies) and the result has been Religion profs 'warning' their students to steer away from the Div courses. I have no idea if Baylor is more 'conservative' than Duke, but I would suspect it would be from browsing its faculty. 

 

In short, the days of Sanders are long behind us, sadly. Duke nearly hired Boyarin, which may have given it that "other side" to challenge its 'Protestant hegemony.' This, alongside a number of significant faculty having retired/about to (and being replaced by, I think, more 'Orthodox' faculty), suggests Duke will become more conservative as time goes or, at the very least much more homogeneous.

[newenglandshawn]

Still, however, I doubt many people turn down Duke for Baylor, and Duke's not really looking to hire Baylor grads. Ergo, Baylor's not top tier.

 

I'm not sure what the point of all this is, and I'm certainly no expert in the academic arena, but I think you're overlooking to a large degree the whole "right fit" intangible. I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would choose Baylor over Duke if it was a better fit.

 

I know that when I am apply for PhD programs my main criteria will be "fit" and geography, rather than reputation - assuming the financial situations are relatively the same.

 

At the same time, that most applicants might choose Harvard or Yale over Duke does not mean that Duke is not a Top Tier program.

 

Lastly, what, exactly, do we mean by "Top Tier"? I don't believe anyone has been able to demonstrate empirical data that can objectively demonstrate what a "Top Tier" program is. My criteria is simply this: will the school pay me to earn a PhD? If so, that is enough to satisfy my serious inquiry into their program.

[sacklunch]

^ Well said. Now that this has come up, what are your opinions about choosing a 'higher ranked' program for practical reasons? I have discussed this very issue with some recent doctoral students and was told it would be wise to pick the better ranked school since the job market is so terrible. These are recent PhD's from 'top programs' (e.g. Duke, Harvard), who apparently are having trouble finding jobs (no way!...heh). So, I wonder, if these sort of 'rankings' matter more now that the economy is so awful. Of course anyone would be lucky to have any options at all, but I wonder if fit truly trumps rankings when getting a job is the end goal. In that sense, yes, Duke is a 'better' school in that it has name recognition outside of religion/theology. I have been told by recent PhD's this matters. At the end of the day the random small schools that hire you would improve their appearance by having a PhD from Duke rather than Baylor. It sucks, but it seems reasonable. Can we all agree on that, at least? Was sagen sie?

Edited February 3, 2014 by derewigestudent

[Joseph45]

^ Well said. Now that this has come up, what are your opinions about choosing a 'higher ranked' program for practical reasons? I have discussed this very issue with some recent doctoral students and was told it would be wise to pick the better ranked school since the job market is so terrible. These are recent PhD's from 'top programs' (e.g. Duke, Harvard), who apparently are having trouble finding jobs (no way!...heh). So, I wonder, if these sort of 'rankings' matter more now that the economy is so awful. Of course anyone would be lucky to have any options at all, but I wonder if fit truly trumps rankings when getting a job is the end goal. In that sense, yes, Duke is a 'better' school in that it has name recognition outside of religion/theology. I have been told by recent PhD's this matters. At the end of the day the random small schools that hire you would improve their appearance by having a PhD from Duke rather than Baylor. It sucks, but it seems reasonable. Can we all agree on that, at least? Was sagen sie?

 

Totally agree. Prestige, for better or worse, actually matters. It's not just about being an arrogant jerk if you're at a top school; that prestige has a real presence is the economy of academia.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Joseph45

[AbrasaxEos]

I think we need Perique69 to come and adjudicate this for us. 

[Balatro]

How's the environment at Baylor in the RS department?

 

I ask because I've been following the situation at Boulder and it reminded me of a former professor. She started her PhD at Baylor and, without going into too much detail, said it was the most toxic environment one could imagine for a woman, let alone a progressive one. I know of another PhD student, though she stayed on and finished, while she described it as troublesome, her language wasn't as colorful as the former. She did say she wouldn't encourage a woman to attend Baylor, though.

 

This was back in early 2000 so I realize I'm sure things have changed some.

[Kuriakos]

Of the 9 people who came in my year, 6 were women. I've not seen anything that even hints at sexism. That said, a lot can change in ten years.