No it didn’t, at least not among the Evangelical crowd, which is a very, very large chunk of the scholarly awareness that’s out there, if not the “majority shareholder” in the scholarship. It’s not as watershed as you might suspect. It’s good, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not a paradigm-shifter in the field of NT studies. And just exactly what is the sub-discipline that (you think) Ehrman created anyway? Does it have a name?

As for mentoring, I think faculty attitudes may be part of the problem. The first thing that needs to happen is that all ambivalence about LDS students entering Religious Studies needs to be shed. That may be slowly happening. I’m not sure. Part of the problem in the past has been most students have wanted to return to teach in RelEd, and faculty never want to be too encouraging about that (and they shouldn’t be). And also, most of us realize that it is presently nigh unto impossible for a Mormon to get a job “outside” in Religious Studies, esp. a BYU grad. It’s like have a degree from Bob Jones University on your CV, for most prospective employers. It has felt irresponsible encouraging students to go down that road. But I think the thought on this is changing and better advisement may come out of that.

Beyond that, it’s just getting the right students hooked up with the right adviser, and making sure that adviser is giving sound advice. How to make that happen systemically, I couldn’t say. Maybe the problem is less with the advisers than the students. I spoke with all faculty who were doing anything of interest to me when I was an undergrad, and picked their brains on grad schools and career paths. Most have never worked outside BYU and know little about careers in Religious Studies (my situation, too). Their collective wisdom on grad schools, though, was pretty decent. But the one thing they were constitutionally incapable of preparing me for was the radical disjunct between the study of religion at BYU and the study of religion everywhere else. They warned me about it, but could not prepare me for it. It’s a matter of environment.

I think you can add the history department to this list too with it’s recent denial of Michael Murdock continuing status (I think that makes like 8-10 Asianists in a row), despite a book published by Cornell last year. Not that he’s involved in religious studies, but I’m sure Michael Farmer, who does history of Daoism is uneasy about his future. And before him I believe there was Ken White who graduated from Wisconsin’s Buddhist Studies program…

But if I were now an LDS undergrad wanting to go into any field of religious studies, I would not come to BYU.

Do you think BYU is feeling “pressured” at all by USU and Claremont? Not to equate religious studies with Mormon studies, but these two places at least could provide more attractive options for LDSs.

I think the way forward, within the given constraints at BYU, is for a more effecting mentoring program.

What would a more robust mentoring program look like?

Now, it’s worse for religious studies, but BYU has no religious studies program, so no surprise there. ANES is a covert, kinda, sorta biblical studies program, but not explicitly such. BYU has never had any interest in preparing students to go into religious studies, because the church has no interest in it. ANES (such as it is) has only arisen out of very strong student and faculty demand. I’m amazed it’s on the books at all. But if I were now an LDS undergrad wanting to go into any field of religious studies, I would not come to BYU. But I did way back when, and it worked out fine, and others have and are now making it work, too.

Final comment (really): I think the way forward, within the given constraints at BYU, is for a more effecting mentoring program. There is something along those lines supposedly in place with ANES, but my experience to date is that it is ineffective. I’m not exactly sure why, but I’ve given a number of students basic advice that their mentors should be giving them.

I’ve always thought “The Y of the West” was more apropos. Yale’s colors are even the same (approximately, at least).

I think this is true for the most part, but I will offer two pieces of criticism. My experience and most of those I know who graduated from BYU and go on to grad schools tend to suffer from the realization that their BYU education has been rather insular as far as larger discourses on religion are concerned. Now how much of this is a general problem stemming from lesser methodological training as an undergraduate is hard to say (hence it makes it a little more difficult to determine if BYU students are “more” or “less” prepared than their peers for grad school); but I will say that those who I have met that did not go to BYU are usually more aware of how much they “do not know” about religion (as opposed to those such as myself who leave thinking that I have a good grasp on the topic).

Secondly, the fact that “BYU students going to grad schools to study religion” is basically equated with “BYU students going into Biblical studies” is gravely insular. Not because Biblical studies and Religious studies occupy two different fields (this may or may not be the case), but because there is more to religion than simply the Bible. If a BYU student wanted to study a non-Biblical religious tradition, what programs would realistically prepare him/her for grad school?

Oh well…spilt milk and all that.

I still think one can prepare oneself adequately with respect to language at BYU, but no single program will do that for you. Certainly ANES is not the solution. I double-majored and took lots of extra classes besides. Much initiative rests with the student. It’s a fact that most classes will be taught to the lowest common denominator, or at least the median, and that’s too low a point for prospective grad students. Provo is not Ivy League.

I also was told to study German (“the most important Semitic language”) and it has been a great help.