When I told them that I am an MDiv student hoping to do a NT PhD, this was the inevitable question that arose from scholars I met at the conference. Of course, there are a bunch of schools that would be wonderful to attend and a plethora of exciting scholars under whom I’d love to study. But the real answer is: wherever I can get in. Good stats (GPA and GRE) only get you past the first round of elimination, then good recommendations make a considerable difference. After that filter, so I’m told, admissions committees assess your letter of intent. They may not even look at your writing sample unless there is a close call between you and another applicant. [If anybody has different information about these things, please share!] [Update (9/19/07): I just would like to make clear that "wherever" is strongly qualified by being within a select group of programs that I feel will be a good fit for me, and that will find me to be a good fit for them]

On Monday afternoon, I got a picture of North American graduate programs from a kind of behind-the-scenes perspective. I attended the 4-hour session entitled, “Graduate Biblical Studies: Ethos and Discipline.” Representatives from 10 different programs shared on the details of their curriculum and the ethos of their program. The idea was to get the discussion going between the graduate programs and see how things should be affirmed or transformed. Some representatives were quite honest about the situation within their schools.

The schools (and their reps) were: Catholic University of America (Timothy Friedrichsen & Frank Matera), Dallas Theological Seminary (D. Jeffrey Bingham), Drew University (Melanie Johnson-Debaufre), Duke University (Eric Meyers), Emory University (Michael Joseph Brown), Fuller Theological Seminary (Donald Hagner), Princeton Theological Seminary (Jacqueline Lapsley), Union Theological Seminary (Brigitte Kahl & Hal Taussig), Vanderbilt University (Douglas Knight), Yale University (Adela Collins).

Here are some thoughts and things that stood out to me (but my disclaimer is that these are things as I heard them, I might be misrepresenting the facts):

• Drew University’s most recent admission roster of graduate students was (“proudly”) 100% international and/or underrepresented minority. I had been interested in Drew University, but now I wonder: Can a North American white male make it in? I know three profs who taught or teach at Messiah who went to Drew (all in OT) and they are all white men. [Clarification: Don't get me wrong. I think it is great that there is a place so welcoming to underrepresented minorities in a largely white-male academia. But my conflicting emotion is my own desire to enter academia as a white male. I want minorities empowered, but I (naturally) don't want doors closed for me because of my own race and gender. So it goes.]
• Universities have more funding than independent seminaries like Fuller and Dallas. I know from personal stories that Fullerites have a hard time making the bills (especially in SoCal), so are distracted from their studies. It sounded like Yale and Emory had significant stipends available to students. Emory has an added bonus for minorities. At PTS, the TA income is in addition to the stipend received.
• Emory and Yale (at least) admit a pool of the best applicants into the entire religious studies division and then divide them up by area of interest. That means that I wouldn’t just be competing against New Testament folks, but also theology, Christian history, Hebrew Bible, etc.
• PTS emphasizes biblical theology and interdisciplinary studies at the university, Penn, and other schools are encouraged. Vanderbilt has a nonconfessional approach to the Bible and offers no courses on theology of biblical texts. Union and Drew emphasize nontraditional social-reading approaches to the Bible (the program at Drew enables students to “drive around in the complex three-dimensional map in time and space” that is biblical studies). Yale emphasizes the “text of the canon,” but does not neglect the historical context. Dallas students must agree with the school’s doctrinal positions and research cannot “offend” their doctrinal base.
• It seems like the schools with the biggest emphasis on foundational linguistic tools (like advanced ancient Greek and Aramaic) are Catholic University of America, Princeton, Yale and Vanderbilt.
• Duke’s NT program is a bit of a maverick compared to the other Duke programs. They do not require an external minor (like the other programs) and there are less language requirements in the divinity school exegetical classes as compared to the Religion Dept. exegetical classes. There is sometimes conflict in balancing the perspectives of the confessional students in the Divinity School and the nonconfessional students in the Religion Dept.

As an added bonus, I met a biblical scholar from Eastern Mennonite Seminary yesterday and she recommended Union Theological Seminary in Virginia to me. I will have to take a look into who is there and how their program is set up. People say to focus on potential mentors rather than the prestige of schools, but I’ve also been told to make sure the school’s program is something I want in case the mentor leaves the school or is unable to remain in the supervisory role (Duke admits that this has happened a number of times). Of course, there are always other factors: the size of the preferred advisor’s current plate, the perception of Fuller Seminary and Messiah College, etc. So the search continues and the answer remains: [among the "good fit" programs,] wherever I can get in.