Top tier, 2nd tier . . . according to who?

[Joseph45]

Not quite. While a person may think Scripture is inerrant, this doesn't necessarily mean he/she believes his/her interpretation of it is. I can readily posit that I believe the Bible is the word of God, while also maintaining that I come to it with my biases and presuppositions (seeking, of course, to ultimately arrive at its true meaning).

Again, as I hinted at before, there are different levels of inerrantists, so I would hesitate to paint with a broad brush.

That's why inerrancy is a completely useless category. I can hold that the Bible in errant, but that doesn't preclude me from believing that the four canonical gospels, and, let's say, the book of Romans, were written ironically, and were meant to be taken as jokes. Their irony and their humor is without error.

 

Of course, we all know that wouldn't be an acceptable position to inerrantists, because the category is actually a cover for certain types of readings of the text.

[Averroes MD]

As a non-Christian theist I find this discussion fascinating.

I have only a cursory understanding of the issue but wouldn't it make a huge difference what one means by "inerrancy"?

[marXian]

As a non-Christian theist I find this discussion fascinating.

I have only a cursory understanding of the issue but wouldn't it make a huge difference what one means by "inerrancy"?

 

An enormous difference. newenglandshawn, I feel like you're equivocating a bit on what you mean by inerrancy. That doesn't seem to me to be a position on which there is any wiggle room. Too much qualification allowed, and you're basically talking about infallibility, which, while still primarily a conservative position, is more "open" in the way that Joseph was describing, especially on matters of history and science. There is a difference between saying "We have an inerrant text to which I only have access through my human, interpretive lens" and "The text is open to interpretation." Inerrancy absolutely rejects the latter, which is, broadly speaking, what the mainline/secular institutions work in.

[Joseph45]

Even if the bickering is off topic from the original question, I think it's actually very beneficial insofar as it showcases how messy it is to talk about ranking RELS programs. There are people out there who will claim that a place like Yale, let's say, doesn't offer as good of education as some an evangelical place because they think Yale doesn't look at as large of "data set" (whatever that's supposed to mean). There are others who think that those people are crazy, and that their scholarship is rarely worth engaging (for reasons enumerated above).

 

I imagine ranking history or economics programs, or at least subfields, is more straightforward.

 

Either way, the best thing to do is to talk to the professors around you, being clear about your specific goals. They'll advise you best.

 

And, remember, unfortunately, no job is easy to get.

[Teluog]

Rankings are always subjective, but data is a little more objective. Auburn Theological Seminary in NY has studied which graduate programs in theology (broadly speaking) have contributed the most faculty to theological schools in North America. The linked document (from 2010) lists the top 20+ programs and notes which offer full funding and which don't, how that impacts admissions, denominational affiliation, etc. Included are the big names anyone would expect: Harvard, Chicago, Yale, Duke, Vanderbildt, Toronto School of Theology, GTU, Claremont, Union Seminary, Boston University. Several evangelical programs are also included. It's a good and useful read. It doesn't attempt to rank the programs but basically states that these are the programs that lead and have led to the most academic teaching positions (in theological schools). http://www.auburnseminary.org/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20a%20Study%20of%20Doctoral%20Programs_0.pdf  

Link not found. :-(

[GREman]

Link not found. :-(

http://www.auburnseminary.org/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20a%20Study%20of%20Doctoral%20Programs_0.pdf

[trinitymatthew]

Joseph45:

 

In response to your much earlier question. No, I don't think the Auburn Study takes into consideration percentages of graduates from the programs. The study is based on "real numbers" of faculty in theological schools, and lists the 24 top programs represented. The study itself is concerned with issues like admissions and recruitment policies, funding, training for teaching, time to completion, etc.

 

For those not able or interested in reading the whole document, here are the top 20 "feeder" programs (determined by numbers of alumni faculty members teaching in theological schools and consolidated when institution is listed twice--Duke, Toronto, BU), listed alphabetically (*Program offer full-tuition funding (and in most cases, stipends as well) to all of most of its students):

 

Boston University (Division of Religious Studies & School of Theology)

Catholic University of America

Columbia University*

Dallas Theological Seminary

Drew University*

Duke Divinity School*/Duke University*

Emory University*

Fuller Theological Seminary

The Graduate Theological Union (GTU)

Harvard University,* (Faculty of Arts & Science and Divinity School)

Princeton Theological Seminary*

Toronto School of Theology (TST)/ University of St. Michael’s College

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS)

Union Theological Seminary*

The University of Chicago Divinity School*

The University of Notre Dame,*

Vanderbilt University*

Yale University*