kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

Category: PhD

Bad News for PhD Re-Applicants

I was flabbergasted to read John Stackhouse’s (theology prof at Regent College in Vancouver) recent blog post about applying to PhD programs. First, he warned applicants against asking to defer their acceptance (“It’s not like undergraduate acceptance”). Clearly, that is sage advice. I’m amazed that people even consider doing that. But the second bit in his post was what got me:

One more thing. I did hear from a senior professor who has held posts at two of America’s top universities that a student who has applied, is turned down, and then applies again the next year does indeed have a strike–or two–against him or her. He didn’t presume to speak for every school everywhere, of course, but he did seem to think this was the way it was commonly done, and he is very widely connected.

Wait, what? It’s counted against you if you reapply to a program that turned you down last year? My entire application strategy was based upon applying to the top tier programs first (all programs that I would say “yes” to without regret) along with some ThM (or equivalent) programs. If I got universally rejected at the PhD level, I’d do a ThM (or equivalent) somewhere and do a second round of applications the next year (with which I would widen the net to “second tier” schools). In the end, I did have two advanced one-year masters programs to choose from, but I am so happy that I got into UCLA as it is really the perfect program for my interests in New Testament social history.

John Stackhouse’s well-connected friend shares information that goes against what I thought to be true. If I had been universally rejected at the PhD level, I would be doing another master’s program right now and panicking a bit. I’m not sure I understand why a school would make it harder for a re-applicant the second time around, unless that applicant had done nothing to improve or had somehow gone backwards. In response to my amazement and confusion, Prof. Stackhouse commented:

I understand your confusion and, perhaps, dubiety, Brother McCullough. I strongly supported one of our graduates who was in precisely this case and whose case elicited this response from my friend. I only pass it along as something my friend sees as common in elite schools: If you’ve been considered and turned down once, you face a steeper hill the next time. It doesn’t make sense to me either, but there it is.

Something to consider very seriously for those who are applying!

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

I'm goin' to UCLA!

ucla-sign.jpgI am pleased to report that I have been offered admission into the Ph.D. program in UCLA’s Department of History, to work under Scott Bartchy, and I have accepted the offer! The specialty is technically called “History of Religions,” but I will mostly be concentrating on Christian origins (especially the New Testament, but also beyond). I understand there was only one spot and I am tremendously honored to have been chosen.

Why UCLA? Several reasons, let’s go for bullet points (in no particular order):

  • I am excited to work with Scott Bartchy, who is a member of the Context Group and has significant experience in social concerns (e.g., slavery, gender roles, community formation) with the New Testament, using sociological and anthropological methods of historical research. I have become more and more drawn to social concerns in Christian origins and Bartchy will help me dive in with both feet. More on Bartchy below.
  • I also have a burgeoning interest in apocalypticism and Christian origins (as if anyone could define apocalypticism). I am especially interested in comparing and contrasting Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. A fairly recent addition to UCLA’s Departments of History and NELC, Ra’anan Boustan, has worked in Jewish apocalyptic issues and in Jewish-Christian relations, which is a great resource for my interests.
  • I have the freedom to piece together my own program, taking a combination of graduate seminars, directed readings, and even upper division undergrad courses not only in the History Department, but also in world-class departments like NELC and Classics.
  • Even though, I’m interested primarily in the New Testament and Christian origins, I can’t shake my interest in the history of Israel, subsequently of Judaism, and their literature. NELC faculty members such as Bill Schniedewind, especially with his interest in sociolinguistics of Hebrew and the social/cultural history of ancient Palestine, will provide deep wells of knowledge for my research.
  • In this program, I will get a well-rounded education, with some training in the history of western civilization generally and world religions.
  • The opportunity to do adjunct teaching in New Testament studies during my dissertation at several excellent Christian schools in the area. I think this will help prepare me by exposing me to various types of settings engaging students in biblical studies.
  • UCLA’s Department of History, according to US News and World Report, is one of the top ten history programs in the country. We all know that such rankings are tenuous, but it’s still nice. Check out the response to the rankings several years back by the American Historical Association.
  • I’ve met some of the graduate students who are studying in the history department and become friends with one of Bartchy’s grad students, Kevin Scull. They are happy and seem like tons of fun. That makes a world of difference!
  • Also, it doesn’t hurt that Fuller has plans to finish construction of their new snazzy library, which will apparently be the largest theological library on the Pacific Rim, in early 2009. I will certainly be frequenting Fuller’s campus while I’m in the program at UCLA.

Some more on Bartchy: He’s down to earth and has a balanced perspective. He’s a jazz pianist and marathon runner. Professor Bartchy is pretty progressive (see a couple articles on his earth-friendly home; and an online interview on his views of Christianity). He cares about his students, even the undergrads! (At a big research university like UCLA, that’s saying a lot.) Bartchy is involved in campus life, participating in panel discussions on religion. He founded and directs the Center for the Study of Religion at UCLA, which brings together disciplines that work on religion from various angles and which also offers an undergraduate major in religion. As I understand it, UCLA has been slow to consider religion as a valid field at a state sponsored university (with perhaps understandable skepticism), but Bartchy has been leading the way to establish the study of religion on campus. His dream would be the creation of a department of religious studies, where “we would have a budget, and we could call in scholars and very distinguished people who might not fit into the agenda of any particular department” except for a religion department. Bartchy is sensitive to various religious experiences in his teaching. In fact, he offers a helpful metaphor for dealing with difficult research issues: the moving around and adjustment of ideological buckets (maybe I’ll say more about that some other time). All of this to say that Scott Bartchy not only offers academic expertise that is quite relevant to my research interests, but he also models a kind of actively involved educator and mentor to students that I would like to become.

In one sense, my decision to study the New Testament within a history department is a statement about my modern sensibilities. While many are declaring the death of the historical method of interpreting the Bible, here I am signing up for historical scholarship on the Bible and the foundational period of Christianity and Judaism. I believe that postmodern-ish methods of interpreting the Bible from various minority perspectives and social locations are enormously helpful in both keeping the practice of the historical-critical method in check, while also offering unique points of view on how to apply our historical findings to the contemporary global situation. But, for myself, I would like to be firmly planted in the historical foundation of research before jumping too deeply into postmodern or postcritical approaches. What better way to do that than study the Bible and its historical context at one of the best history departments in the country?

ucla-band.jpg

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon