Biblical Studies Applicants

[JMR0408]

I wanted to open a thread for biblical studies applicants. Where are you applying? Any word? Are you Hebrew Bible or New Testament?

I'm applying for work in NT/Early Christianity to Indiana U-Bloomington, Vanderbilt, and Brite Divinity School.

[11Q13]

See below

My main interest is Second Temple, so late OT, intertestimental stuff, and NT

I considered applying to Brite because of Leo Perdue, but I decided (possibly incorrectly), that Brite wouldn't have the reputation to get me into a top PhD program or a career after my Master's

[JMR0408]

Yeah, in assuming that Brite somehow equals career suicide, I think you did decide incorrectly against Brite. There's this notion out there among some that the only schools worth attending are Duke, Emory, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, etc. - you can fill in the blanks on the rest of them. But graduate study (especially PhD work) is not about the name on the sign out at the curbside; it's more about the names of your recs combined with the work that YOU have done YOURSELF. Given your interests in Second Temple, I would think you would jump at the chance to work not only with Leo Perdue, but also with Toni Craven, a known expert on Judith (among other things). In other words, the biblical studies faculty at Brite is about as good as it gets, my friend (NT included). For example, Brite has sent a NT ThM student to Vanderbilt for a PhD the past two years ('08 and '09), and other students from Brite get into plenty of other programs - I know Rice Univ in Houston has taken two of the Ethics students lately.

Btw, I have a MTS from Brite in biblical studies and am wrapping up a ThM there now. The bib studies profs I worked with during my masters work would make some top-tier PhD students envious. Oh yeah, and Brite offers great tuition scholarships to EVERY student (I've never seen anything less than 70% for masters students). People do very well for themselves at Brite, and Brite does very well for its students. Best of luck, though.

[LateAntique]

Yeah, in assuming that Brite somehow equals career suicide, I think you did decide incorrectly against Brite. There's this notion out there among some that the only schools worth attending are Duke, Emory, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, etc. - you can fill in the blanks on the rest of them. But graduate study (especially PhD work) is not about the name on the sign out at the curbside; it's more about the names of your recs combined with the work that YOU have done YOURSELF. Given your interests in Second Temple, I would think you would jump at the chance to work not only with Leo Perdue, but also with Toni Craven, a known expert on Judith (among other things). In other words, the biblical studies faculty at Brite is about as good as it gets, my friend (NT included). For example, Brite has sent a NT ThM student to Vanderbilt for a PhD the past two years ('08 and '09), and other students from Brite get into plenty of other programs - I know Rice Univ in Houston has taken two of the Ethics students lately.

Btw, I have a MTS from Brite in biblical studies and am wrapping up a ThM there now. The bib studies profs I worked with during my masters work would make some top-tier PhD students envious. Oh yeah, and Brite offers great tuition scholarships to EVERY student (I've never seen anything less than 70% for masters students). People do very well for themselves at Brite, and Brite does very well for its students. Best of luck, though.

Yikes - defensive much? The guy noted that maybe he underestimated Brite's reputation. However, the best places to do work in Biblical studies are still Duke, Harvard, Yale, Emory, etc.

[JMR0408]

Yikes - defensive much? The guy noted that maybe he underestimated Brite's reputation. However, the best places to do work in Biblical studies are still Duke, Harvard, Yale, Emory, etc.

I'm a little defensive, sure, but I have my reasons.

As for those schools you listed being the best places to study biblical studies... I'm not so sure. It depends on what you want to do. Many of those depts are operating on the reputations they had years ago and, in my opinion, simply are not producing the best work in NT (the field I'm in, so I can speak to it). Sure, they have money and good standing in American society, but sometimes that is about it. For instance, I prefer social historical and social scientific approaches (as well as some of the newer ideological approaches, such as postcolonialism, gender studies, queer theory, etc.) to early Christianity. With the exception of Yale (with Dale Martin), none of the "top-tier" schools really fit the bill of what I want in a program. Duke and Emory both continue to be bastions of traditional historical-criticism (which often leads to more theological work), and I am simply not interested. I'm just pointing out that on these forums here a lot of people are acting like the only schools that exist and that deserve attention are the same old group of Harvard, Yale, Duke, etc. There are more fish in the sea. That's all. I don't mean to spark an argument. I just think other voices deserve to be heard, too.

[LateAntique]

I'm a little defensive, sure, but I have my reasons.

As for those schools you listed being the best places to study biblical studies... I'm not so sure. It depends on what you want to do. Many of those depts are operating on the reputations they had years ago and, in my opinion, simply are not producing the best work in NT (the field I'm in, so I can speak to it). Sure, they have money and good standing in American society, but sometimes that is about it. For instance, I prefer social historical and social scientific approaches (as well as some of the newer ideological approaches, such as postcolonialism, gender studies, queer theory, etc.) to early Christianity. With the exception of Yale (with Dale Martin), none of the "top-tier" schools really fit the bill of what I want in a program. Duke and Emory both continue to be bastions of traditional historical-criticism (which often leads to more theological work), and I am simply not interested. I'm just pointing out that on these forums here a lot of people are acting like the only schools that exist and that deserve attention are the same old group of Harvard, Yale, Duke, etc. There are more fish in the sea. That's all. I don't mean to spark an argument. I just think other voices deserve to be heard, too.

It's fine to say that Duke or Yale or Harvard doesn't match up with your desires. It's not fine to get an attitude with someone because you're feeling defensive/insecure about the place you attend. It's cool to choose schools based on fit, even if they aren't seen as being the most prestigious - that makes sense.

Also, I think Duke probably has one of the most exciting NT faculties out there - Goodacre, Marcus, Hays, Campbell, etc. I think if Brite is doing the kind of work you want to do, it only makes sense to go there.

[JMR0408]

It's fine to say that Duke or Yale or Harvard doesn't match up with your desires. It's not fine to get an attitude with someone because you're feeling defensive/insecure about the place you attend. It's cool to choose schools based on fit, even if they aren't seen as being the most prestigious - that makes sense.

Also, I think Duke probably has one of the most exciting NT faculties out there - Goodacre, Marcus, Hays, Campbell, etc. I think if Brite is doing the kind of work you want to do, it only makes sense to go there.

I have no insecurities about my school. In fact, I responded the way I did earlier to defend its reputation.

[philonic]

It's fine to say that Duke or Yale or Harvard doesn't match up with your desires. It's not fine to get an attitude with someone because you're feeling defensive/insecure about the place you attend. It's cool to choose schools based on fit, even if they aren't seen as being the most prestigious - that makes sense.

Also, I think Duke probably has one of the most exciting NT faculties out there - Goodacre, Marcus, Hays, Campbell, etc. I think if Brite is doing the kind of work you want to do, it only makes sense to go there.

I don't think JMR intended to be snippy. Rather, I think s/he was making the case that the Ivys, Duke, and Emory should be judged by the substance of their respective programs, faculty, academic productivity, internal stability, reputation with/treatment of graduate students, and not by their names alone.

Also, schools with names have been known to be utterly dysfunctional, plagued by infighting (Vanderbilt and Emory), unnecessarily harsh on students (UChicago and Brown), and have reputations for creating toxic environments wherein students competing for funds, fellowships, and appointments routinely sabotage each other's work (Yale and Harvard). I am not trying to dissuade anyone from applying to or attending these schools. I will say, however, that if you want to grind through a program for 10yrs, like Chicago, struggle to assemble a dissertation committee b/c the faculty in your field hate each other, as at Emory and Vanderbilt, duke it out with your colleagues for department privileges and funding, as at Harvard or Yale, or take two or three rounds of qualifying exams just to be failed and dumped out of the program with an MA, as at Brown, then, by all means, go there and have fun!

[LateAntique]

I don't think JMR intended to be snippy. Rather, I think s/he was making the case that the Ivys, Duke, and Emory should be judged by the substance of their respective programs, faculty, academic productivity, internal stability, reputation with/treatment of graduate students, and not by their names alone.

Also, schools with names have been known to be utterly dysfunctional, plagued by infighting (Vanderbilt and Emory), unnecessarily harsh on students (UChicago and Brown), and have reputations for creating toxic environments wherein students competing for funds, fellowships, and appointments routinely sabotage each other's work (Yale and Harvard). I am not trying to dissuade anyone from applying to or attending these schools. I will say, however, that if you want to grind through a program for 10yrs, like Chicago, struggle to assemble a dissertation committee b/c the faculty in your field hate each other, as at Emory and Vanderbilt, duke it out with your colleagues for department privileges and funding, as at Harvard or Yale, or take two or three rounds of qualifying exams just to be failed and dumped out of the program with an MA, as at Brown, then, by all means, go there and have fun!

I never said 'snippy' - I said 'defensive/insecure'. He felt the need to get defensive because he felt like someone did not take his school seriously.

I have friends at most of those programs and they're all quite happy people. Maybe some people get along better in those programs than others.

[philonic]

I never said 'snippy' - I said 'defensive/insecure'. He felt the need to get defensive because he felt like someone did not take his school seriously.

I have friends at most of those programs and they're all quite happy people. Maybe some people get along better in those programs than others.

LateAntique, don't take me the wrong way; I was simply trying to offer a different take on JMR's post. My only point about the big name programs is that there is more to them than a name and reputation; it is often difficult for students to flourish at those prestigious schools b/c of departmental politics, heightened competition between fellow students, and enormous expectations. I am extremely glad your friends are happy at their respective schools; it doesn't always work out that way.

[Neutestamentler]

Also, schools with names have been known to be utterly dysfunctional, plagued by infighting (Vanderbilt and Emory), unnecessarily harsh on students (UChicago and Brown), and have reputations for creating toxic environments wherein students competing for funds, fellowships, and appointments routinely sabotage each other's work (Yale and Harvard).

As a current student in one of the programs that you described, I have to wonder where you're getting your information because it is completely at odds with my experiences. I get your point that there are downsides in every program, but your caricatures are a bit over the top.

[philonic]

As a current student in one of the programs that you described, I have to wonder where you're getting your information because it is completely at odds with my experiences. I get your point that there are downsides in every program, but your caricatures are a bit over the top.

Much of what I know comes from friends at those schools or people I've chatted with at SBL. To be clear, I was not trying to evaluate each school on balance, but merely point out that I know or have heard of people facing difficult circumstances at each school I've mentioned. Perhaps such circumstances are not as common or severe as my comments seem to indicate.

[formerroadie]

I agree with Philonic and JMR. There is a tendency to view the ivy league and famous names as somehow better than other schools based simply on name. I would say there are exceptions. Yale has top grade profs and I have heard nothing about in-fighting. Emory is split politically as are a number of others. Also, many of those schools have become centered on historical criticism and are having a hard time adapting to new paradigms. Change is not coming easy to places like Duke/Brown/Princeton, etc. What I would say is find someone you want to study with regardless of school. It's not the school but the mentor you are going to be under. If Yale or Harvard have that person, then apply, but don't limit yourself to such places. My mentor is a well respected member of the guild and one of the only female presidents of SBL. She did not teach at an Ivy League school and I'm happy with that given the time and attention I have gotten from her. The faculty at my school are more impressive than some of those ivy league schools, even in historical criticism, because there is a turn around happening in terms of regular senior faculty at those Ivy League schools. Profs at my school have continued to advance the field and I found my seminars to be just as challenging as anything I sat in on at say Chicago or Yale. I'm not trying to defend my education because I don't need to. I'm just saying that, for those of you who are applying, don't limit yourself to those schools you think of when you think "biblical studies" or "religious studies" and look around for great scholars that may be at smaller schools.

[philonic]

I agree with Philonic and JMR. There is a tendency to view the ivy league and famous names as somehow better than other schools based simply on name. I would say there are exceptions. Yale has top grade profs and I have heard nothing about in-fighting. Emory is split politically as are a number of others. Also, many of those schools have become centered on historical criticism and are having a hard time adapting to new paradigms. Change is not coming easy to places like Duke/Brown/Princeton, etc. What I would say is find someone you want to study with regardless of school. It's not the school but the mentor you are going to be under. If Yale or Harvard have that person, then apply, but don't limit yourself to such places. My mentor is a well respected member of the guild and one of the only female presidents of SBL. She did not teach at an Ivy League school and I'm happy with that given the time and attention I have gotten from her. The faculty at my school are more impressive than some of those ivy league schools, even in historical criticism, because there is a turn around happening in terms of regular senior faculty at those Ivy League schools. Profs at my school have continued to advance the field and I found my seminars to be just as challenging as anything I sat in on at say Chicago or Yale. I'm not trying to defend my education because I don't need to. I'm just saying that, for those of you who are applying, don't limit yourself to those schools you think of when you think "biblical studies" or "religious studies" and look around for great scholars that may be at smaller schools.

Well put.

[LateAntique]

I think everyone can agree that there are good scholars outside of Harvard, Yale, Duke, Princeton, etc. I'm probably going to attend FSU next year and I'm very excited at the prospects of working with David Levenson.

However, my original post was simply to point out that one should not get defensive and get an attitude when someone else underestimates the reputation of one's school or the scholars that teach there. Brite may very well be a very fine school for certain things, but that doesn't mean one should get defensive because Brite isn't perceived as being on the same playing field as Harvard or Yale (and it's not - even if some scholars who teach at Brite would do just as well at an Ivy).

As I said - one should attend the school that they see as being the best fit.

[greenlam]

I agree with Philonic and JMR. There is a tendency to view the ivy league and famous names as somehow better than other schools based simply on name. I would say there are exceptions. Yale has top grade profs and I have heard nothing about in-fighting. Emory is split politically as are a number of others. Also, many of those schools have become centered on historical criticism and are having a hard time adapting to new paradigms. Change is not coming easy to places like Duke/Brown/Princeton, etc. What I would say is find someone you want to study with regardless of school. It's not the school but the mentor you are going to be under. If Yale or Harvard have that person, then apply, but don't limit yourself to such places. My mentor is a well respected member of the guild and one of the only female presidents of SBL. She did not teach at an Ivy League school and I'm happy with that given the time and attention I have gotten from her. The faculty at my school are more impressive than some of those ivy league schools, even in historical criticism, because there is a turn around happening in terms of regular senior faculty at those Ivy League schools. Profs at my school have continued to advance the field and I found my seminars to be just as challenging as anything I sat in on at say Chicago or Yale. I'm not trying to defend my education because I don't need to. I'm just saying that, for those of you who are applying, don't limit yourself to those schools you think of when you think "biblical studies" or "religious studies" and look around for great scholars that may be at smaller schools.

I would wager that few serious academics (or serious academics-in-training) in biblical studies view "ivy league and famous names as somehow better than other schools based simply on name," as this post implies. "Better" schools such a those listed above are not "better" because of their names. They are often "better" because they offer students access to quantifiably better resources, such as funding, library holdings, and a larger faculty, which are quite scarce and fundamentally necessary for success as a graduate student. Furthermore, my own experience has shown me that senior faculty members at "better" schools are typically, but not always, better connected on a personal and/or professional level with other scholars, publishing houses, editorial boards, grant agencies, etc., which can benefit their students enormously early in their own careers. And let's not forget that "better" programs are or at least historically have been incredibly incestuous; "better" PhD programs tend to hire faculty from perceived peer institutions, which ensures that the situation continues largely unchecked. It might not be "fair," and it might not have any basis in scholarly competency or promise, but it is simply the way it is. (A similar situation exists in doctoral admissions.) Finally, let's be honest: American hiring committees do consider the "names" of the institutions where applicants earned their PhD's, particularly at schools where committee members from other disciplines (or even within "religious studies") might know little to nothing about the current quality of a given program and faculty at a particular university.

The advice to seek a mentor not an institution might be noble, but it is rather unrealistic and decidedly short-sighted, and it suffers from the grand delusion that graduate education in America is primarily, if not entirely, about research, and for that matter, individual research with a single mentor. In reality, it is not. The sooner we all come to grips with that sad fact the better off we all will be.

[redreverend]

This feud is awesome! It's helping to take my mind off of waiting for letters and emails.

[LateAntique]

I would wager that few serious academics (or serious academics-in-training) in biblical studies view "ivy league and famous names as somehow better than other schools based simply on name," as this post implies. "Better" schools such a those listed above are not "better" because of their names. They are often "better" because they offer students access to quantifiably better resources, such as funding, library holdings, and a larger faculty, which are quite scarce and fundamentally necessary for success as a graduate student. Furthermore, my own experience has shown me that senior faculty members at "better" schools are typically, but not always, better connected on a personal and/or professional level with other scholars, publishing houses, editorial boards, grant agencies, etc., which can benefit their students enormously early in their own careers. And let's not forget that "better" programs are or at least historically have been incredibly incestuous; "better" PhD programs tend to hire faculty from perceived peer institutions, which ensures that the situation continues largely unchecked. It might not be "fair," and it might not have any basis in scholarly competency or promise, but it is simply the way it is. (A similar situation exists in doctoral admissions.) Finally, let's be honest: American hiring committees do consider the "names" of the institutions where applicants earned their PhD's, particularly at schools where committee members from other disciplines (or even within "religious studies") might know little to nothing about the current quality of a given program and faculty at a particular university.

The advice to seek a mentor not an institution might be noble, but it is rather unrealistic and decidedly short-sighted, and it suffers from the grand delusion that graduate education in America is primarily, if not entirely, about research, and for that matter, individual research with a single mentor. In reality, it is not. The sooner we all come to grips with that sad fact the better off we all will be.

Straight from a Duke Professor's mouth when he told me about hiring policies: "We have a big stack of folders, and we say, 'This is a Yale trained (whatever)', 'Here is a Harvard graduate...'."

I agree with several of your points. 1) Top tier grad schools are incestuous. It's incredibly difficult to break into those schools without some sort of "in". 2) Schools with bigger, better programs are obviously going to have more resources available to their students. Ask anyone who's receiving a stipend from Duke vs. someone who is attending Dallas Theological for their Ph.D. My uni doesn't have a grad program in Religion, but our library holdings are awful. I often have to travel to Duke if I want to write a paper with any sort of depth.

Also, top tier programs are going to have the resources to poach professors from other programs. Much to U of Chicago's chagrin, Princeton has a long history of poaching Classics professors from U of Chicago. It may not be fair, but that's how it goes.

[philonic]

I would wager that few serious academics (or serious academics-in-training) in biblical studies view "ivy league and famous names as somehow better than other schools based simply on name," as this post implies. "Better" schools such a those listed above are not "better" because of their names. They are often "better" because they offer students access to quantifiably better resources, such as funding, library holdings, and a larger faculty, which are quite scarce and fundamentally necessary for success as a graduate student. Furthermore, my own experience has shown me that senior faculty members at "better" schools are typically, but not always, better connected on a personal and/or professional level with other scholars, publishing houses, editorial boards, grant agencies, etc., which can benefit their students enormously early in their own careers. And let's not forget that "better" programs are or at least historically have been incredibly incestuous; "better" PhD programs tend to hire faculty from perceived peer institutions, which ensures that the situation continues largely unchecked. It might not be "fair," and it might not have any basis in scholarly competency or promise, but it is simply the way it is. (A similar situation exists in doctoral admissions.) Finally, let's be honest: American hiring committees do consider the "names" of the institutions where applicants earned their PhD's, particularly at schools where committee members from other disciplines (or even within "religious studies") might know little to nothing about the current quality of a given program and faculty at a particular university.

The advice to seek a mentor not an institution might be noble, but it is rather unrealistic and decidedly short-sighted, and it suffers from the grand delusion that graduate education in America is primarily, if not entirely, about research, and for that matter, individual research with a single mentor. In reality, it is not. The sooner we all come to grips with that sad fact the better off we all will be.

Someone needs counseling. There's more to life and to this field than getting ahead, making money, and being productive. Every grad student wants to find a school which supports his/her work and advance their career, but I also think the average person wants to feel fulfilled in the work s/he does. As someone elsewhere suggested, you find the place that will fit your academic interests, professional goals, and personal desires/needs best. The Ivys won't give me what I really want. I'm not delusional, I'm different. I wouldn't mind having access to their money or library, but I can find what I want elsewhere; there is nothing short-sighted, unrealistic, or delusional about it.

[oudeis]

I think that a few important aspects have been overlooked in this little debate. I do not doubt that great training can be obtained from lesser known programs at lesser known institutions and sometimes the "fit" at these places make going there the best choice. However, there is a difference in the rigor demanded by programs and professors. Compare the language examinations at places such as Princeton, Duke, UChicago, and Yale and even among these there is a broad spectrum of what is required of the student (e.g. Princeton actually has the easiest Greek exams of these four while UChicago has the most difficult). Then compare these exams to the those from lesser known programs and the gap is notable. Also, you must compare the comprehensive/qualifying exams, oral exams, qualifying papers, etc. to determine 1) what kind of training you will be receiving 2) what is demanded of students and 3) the kind of career you will be prepared for (not every PhD student is trained for, desires, or is cut out for a research institution type career). This is not to say that lesser known programs may not have very exacting exams etc., but during my 5 years of grad student life (2 yrs MA, 3 yrs of PhD, many more to come) I have learned that such programs are pretty rare.

I am not criticizing the lesser known programs or the students in them, I am just saying that there is more to the issue than mentors and names.