Is getting a PhD worth it?

[historygeek]

I am thinking of applying to a couple funded masters programs in history, in addition to (or perhaps instead of) the education program. 

I know that my undergraduate school has funded MAs, and through the search feature, I’ve found a great list of other funded programs.

Edited August 14, 2018 by historygeek

[Sigaba]

1 hour ago, historygeek said:

I am thinking of applying to a couple funded masters programs in history, in addition to (or perhaps instead of) the education program. 

I know that my undergraduate school has funded MAs, and through the search feature, I’ve found a great list of other funded programs.

I think that you should strive for a healthy balance of unbridled optimism and endless optimism.

Visualize yourself developing as a historian this coming year, kicking ass and taking names during the application season, and earning admission to your preferred doctoral programs.

Invest more time into your relationship with history so that your engagement with the past is more than passion. Keep working on your critical thinking skills, your abilities as a researcher, and your writing.

Put aside for now your doubts, fears, and concerns. (There'll be plenty of time for such feelings when you're preparing for your qualifying exams.)

[historygeek]

4 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

I think that you should strive for a healthy balance of unbridled optimism and endless optimism.

Visualize yourself developing as a historian this coming year, kicking ass and taking names during the application season, and earning admission to your preferred doctoral programs.

Invest more time into your relationship with history so that your engagement with the past is more than passion. Keep working on your critical thinking skills, your abilities as a researcher, and your writing.

Put aside for now your doubts, fears, and concerns. (There'll be plenty of time for such feelings when you're preparing for your qualifying exams.)

Out of reactions for the day, but thank you for this. One of my biggest problems is self-doubt. 

[psstein]

18 hours ago, kgras13 said:

Agreed, this is very frustrating. I met with a current PhD student whose advice to me included having my parents buy me a house at whatever uni I ended up at, since mortgage is cheaper than rent. I've never laughed so hard in my life- for those of us on our own, a PhD is no small financial decision.

One of my undergrad professors advised me to convince my parents to buy an apartment. This line of thought isn't as rare as we'd like to think.

[TMP]

18 hours ago, OHSP said:

Amazing. I've discovered that some fellow students live in apartments that are $2000 a month just for their room (I pay $700 a month), and had people become very confused about the fact that I can't afford to go home (to the other side of the globe) more than once every 2 years or so/that my parents (a farmworker and a hospital orderly) can't just buy me tickets. Coming from a country where college is far more accessible, at least financially, I've found the US culture pretty astounding. But there are benefits to having to work over the summer etc. 

Always depends where you are living in NYC and how many roommates you've got...

[OHSP]

54 minutes ago, TMP said:

Always depends where you are living in NYC and how many roommates you've got...

Is true--but I don't know of any friends paying more than $800 or $900 rent as grad students (because how to eat?). I share a studio with my partner so am lucky. Anyone paying $2000 for a room in nyc and going to grad school has either done a very impressive job of saving $$ pre-grad school and is now willing to spend it or.... the alternative. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by OHSP

[urbanhistorynerd]

My 2cents to my friends is: No one going into a history Ph.D. program expects to be wealthy afterwards.

 

Financial stability is defined differently if you have kids, a mortgage, or other obligations. But if you are single or even in relationship without children or outstanding debts (such as student loans, etc), you'll have a better time managing the process, both during and after your Ph.D. program.

Like @Sigaba has said before, if you want to be a professor, get a Ph.D., if you want to do anything else, reconsider it. However, this doesn't mean down the road you will be highly overeducated and unemployed. The amount of careers and positions available in higher ed administration, nonprofit, cultural institutions, government, etc, are all fitting and held by history Ph.D.

I work in public history, and nearly everyone I've worked with has a MA or PhD in history. And depending on your field (mine is American urban history) you can apply it to different careers. For example, the city I live in was hiring a director of affordable housing and one of the preferred qualifications was an advance degree in urban studies, anthropology, or history.

The Reddit post makes it seem like if you pursue a history Ph.D. you will become homeless and destitute. Not the case at all. I doubt too many people (evidenced by employment records) are in paucity because they pursued a history Ph.D. What the post should say is that you will not be guaranteed, and it is unlikely, that you will become a tenured professor (lecturers, instructors, VAPs, etc, are also options).

A person with a history Ph.D. is a part of an incredibly educated, skilled, and connected member of the upper strata of American educational attainment ladder, and would be able to work in a multitude of fields, not just teaching.

[historygeek]

3 minutes ago, urbanhistorynerd said:

My 2cents to my friends is: No one going into a history Ph.D. program expects to be wealthy afterwards.

 

Financial stability is defined differently if you have kids, a mortgage, or other obligations. But if you are single or even in relationship without children or outstanding debts (such as student loans, etc), you'll have a better time managing the process, both during and after your Ph.D. program.

Like @Sigaba has said before, if you want to be a professor, get a Ph.D., if you want to do anything else, reconsider it. However, this doesn't mean down the road you will be highly overeducated and unemployed. The amount of careers and positions available in higher ed administration, nonprofit, cultural institutions, government, etc, are all fitting and held by history Ph.D.

I work in public history, and nearly everyone I've worked with has a MA or PhD in history. And depending on your field (mine is American urban history) you can apply it to different careers. For example, the city I live in was hiring a director of affordable housing and one of the preferred qualifications was an advance degree in urban studies, anthropology, or history.

The Reddit post makes it seem like if you pursue a history Ph.D. you will become homeless and destitute. Not the case at all. I doubt too many people (evidenced by employment records) are in paucity because they pursued a history Ph.D. What the post should say is that you will not be guaranteed, and it is unlikely, that you will become a tenured professor (lecturers, instructors, VAPs, etc, are also options).

A person with a history Ph.D. is a part of an incredibly educated, skilled, and connected member of the upper strata of American educational attainment ladder, and would be able to work in a multitude of fields, not just teaching.

This made me feel a bit better.

I decided to go for the PhD-- it's my dream, and has been for years. I don't think I would be truly happy as just a teacher; the production of history is my main source of enjoyment. I am, however, completely prepared to not stay in academia and work in a museum, archives, etc. 

[Sigaba]

2 minutes ago, urbanhistorynerd said:

For example, the city I live in was hiring a director of affordable housing and one of the preferred qualifications was an advance degree in urban studies, anthropology, or history.

I would be very surprised if this municipality would actually hire a historian who did not also have years of planning/policy/program management experience.

[urbanhistorynerd]

6 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

I would be very surprised if this municipality would actually hire a historian who did not also have years of planning/policy/program management experience.

I agree, and what I wanted to explain by that example is that there are positions out there, that are not directly related but would still be fitting for a history Ph.D. recipient.

 

An anecdote: 

A friend of mine is applying to medical schools. Most schools, even lower tier ones, have an acceptance rate of around 5-10% - around the same for history Ph.D. programs. In addition to that depressing statistic, a large percentage of medical students drop out with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Everyone he's talked to encouraged him to applying for the much easier to get into physical assistant program, or become a nurse, or go to pharmacy school. But the issue at hand is that he doesn't want to do those. He wants to be a doctor, one with a medical degree. He wants to endure the difficulties, both finanical and mental, of medical school and the very difficult life afterwards. That experience, the learning, it is all something he wants to do. He is working extremely hard throughout his undergraduate - years and preparation- for the chance to get in, which many not happen. But he is doing it anyway because what else would he do? Work in another field? An option, yes, but he doesn't want that. He wants to be a physician. And similar to me, I want to be a historian. I would consider alternatives - hell, you HAVE to consider alternatives in this depressing state of the profession - but the bottom line is that I want to be a historian. Professorship or not, I want to endure graduate school, stress through comps, struggle to write a dissertation, and exit the program with a degree in hand and a horizon open for me. Whether I'll be a professor or not, the knowledge from 5-7 years of painstaking learning, will have made me into a historian. 

Going into the field with cynicism and realism is important. I know what I'm getting myself into, and I want to do it. Don't get your hopes up and daydream. Be real about your chances and the unfortunate circumstances we have to deal with. And if it seems worth it after everything, go ahead and do it. A cliche and trite statement, but you only have one life to live.

Edited August 15, 2018 by urbanhistorynerd

[AfricanusCrowther]

5 minutes ago, urbanhistorynerd said:

I agree, and what I wanted to explain by that example is that there are positions out there, that are not directly related but would still be fitting for a history Ph.D. recipient.

 

An anecdote: 

A friend of mine is applying to medical schools. Most schools, even lower tier ones, have an acceptance rate of around 5-10% - around the same for history Ph.D. programs. In addition to that depressing statistic, a large percentage of medical students drop out with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Everyone he's talked to encouraged him to applying for the much easier to get into physical assistant program, or become a nurse, or go to pharmacy school. But the issue at hand is that he doesn't want to do those. He wants to be a doctor, one with a medical degree. He wants to endure the difficulties, both finanical and mental, of medical school and the very difficult life afterwards. That experience, the learning, it is all something he wants to do. He is working extremely hard throughout his undergraduate - years and preparation- for the chance to get in, which many not happen. But he is doing it anyway because what else would he do? Work in another field? An option, yes, but he doesn't want that. He wants to be a physician. And similar to me, I want to be a historian. I would consider alternatives - hell, you HAVE to consider alternatives in this depressing state of the profession - but the bottom line is that I want to be a historian. Professorship or not, I want to endure graduate school, stress through comps, struggle to write a dissertation, and exit the program with a degree in hand and a horizon open for me. Whether I'll be a professor or not, the knowledge from 5-7 years of painstaking learning, will have made me into a historian. 

Going into the field with cynicism and realism is important. I know what I'm getting myself into, and I want to do it. Don't get your hopes up and daydream. Be real about your chances and the unfortunate circumstances we have to deal with. And if it seems worth it after everything, go ahead and do it. A cliche and trite statement, but you only have one life to live.

The "struggle" of graduate school is not always a noble, dignified one. It can be humiliating, morally debilitating, infuriatingly arbitrary, and intellectually limiting, especially (precisely?) because academic work is so much more personal than most other forms of labor. I encourage you to read this classic essay by Tim Burke. 

As they say, your mileage may vary, and I certainly have friends who love it and are having a blast, but trust me that you cannot anticipate the ways your sense of self-worth can be destroyed in graduate school, for no good reason and by people you assumed you could trust. You need to prepare to make some provision for your mental health, beyond just dealing with the stress of being busy.

 

[Sigaba]

1 hour ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

The "struggle" of graduate school is not always a noble, dignified one. It can be humiliating, morally debilitating, infuriatingly arbitrary, and intellectually limiting, especially (precisely?) because academic work is so much more personal than most other forms of labor. I encourage you to read this classic essay by Tim Burke. 

I would recommend the relevant essays in Peter Lowenberg, Decoding the Past: The Psychohistorical Approach 2nd Edition.

IRT the hardships of graduate school, I don't know that they're necessarily worse/better than those in the private sector. My friends who are veterans of the armed services have shared first and second hand experiences that make the most dispiriting day in the Ivory Tower look like an all expenses paid vacation to Disneyland. As long as interpersonal relationships are a component of human activity, there are going to be plenty of opportunities for disappointment, humiliation, and other wonderful feelings.

[AnUglyBoringNerd]

12 hours ago, OHSP said:

paying more than $800 or $900 rent as grad students

 ....Columbia is gonna charge me nearly 1300/month for rent, and the rent on average for furnished apartment share is $1220. (source: http://facilities.columbia.edu/housing/types-accommodations) But I still think it's doable. My impression is if I use my (9 month) stipend for the entire year (and saving my summer funding only for research trips), I'd probably have around $600-700 left for food etc. every month after tax and rent. BTW, I'm actually moving to NYC this Sunday ~

Regarding something more relevant to this thread, I actually can envision myself doing other things I absolutely love (e.g. being an NGO researcher, which is my previous job) other than doing a History PhD, but training to become a historian will make me a much better NGO researcher while being an NGO researcher can hardly help me become a professional historian, and I want to be a historian a lot more than I want to be an NGO researcher. Also, my work with NGOs is related to my research interests in History (human rights, gender and sexuality, and international relations) So, in short, I'm very grateful that my PhD supervisor takes my NGO experience seriously (tbh, I didn't expect this), and that my NGO supervisor has always been supportive of my getting a PhD.  

Does this rationale make sense?

[Procopius]

16 hours ago, urbanhistorynerd said:

The amount of careers and positions available in higher ed administration, nonprofit, cultural institutions, government, etc, are all fitting and held by history Ph.D.

I find this to be the best positive aspect of a PhD in history, that you can still do a handful of other stuff even after attaining a phD. The doom and gloom talks only exist to keep students’ expectations in check. Personally, i think if you can get into a solid program (preferably among the usual suspects), and have no debt, the PhD is not so terrible of an idea. But you need a crazy amount of passion for it.

 

6 hours ago, AnUglyBoringNerd said:

Does this rationale make sense?

I like that you have a backup plan. I’m still formulating mine.

[OHSP]

10 hours ago, AnUglyBoringNerd said:

 ....Columbia is gonna charge me nearly 1300/month for rent, and the rent on average for furnished apartment share is $1220. (source: http://facilities.columbia.edu/housing/types-accommodations)

What Columbia charges students for accomodation versus what grad students in the city tend to pay for rent, especially after their first year = not the same thing. Trust me also that the topic of money, stipends, rent etc etc is pretty relevant to question of whether a phd is worth it. It's a matter of how you're going to live for the next 5-7 years. 

[psstein]

5 hours ago, Procopius said:

I find this to be the best positive aspect of a PhD in history, that you can still do a handful of other stuff even after attaining a phD. The doom and gloom talks only exist to keep students’ expectations in check. Personally, i think if you can get into a solid program (preferably among the usual suspects), and have no debt, the PhD is not so terrible of an idea. But you need a crazy amount of passion for it.

I agree with you. The "don't do it" talk really applies more to people who see graduate school as "the next step" or think that it's a way to avoid the real world. It's not as though there's a swell of unemployed history PhDs wandering the streets, asking for money. Yes, there's a significant underemployed contingent, but saying that it's "academic job or bust" reinforces the idea that any non-academic route is a failure. There are multiple history PhDs in the private sector who have better pay, better benefits, and far less stress than 99% of tenured/TT professors. 

Did they "fail?" I doubt it.

[derphilosoph]

49 minutes ago, psstein said:

There are multiple history PhDs in the private sector who have better pay, better benefits, and far less stress than 99% of tenured/TT professors.

I believe more history PhDs should really consider working in the private sector. Many historians think that the main alternatives to academia are either government or NGOs. While both of those are perfectly good career choices, the private sector also has many jobs for which historians might be qualified.

Anecdotally speaking, after undergrad, I worked for a year at a technology firm in the Bay Area. There are many departments at these types of companies in which historians could try to work: marketing, risk, operations, strategy, sales. Within my operations department, there were people with a variety of backgrounds including math, political science, and economics. Granted history is a bit more difficult to "sell" to tech firms, they were still willing to hire me, an undergrad history major. At one point, I asked them why they chose to hire me, and they said that my interviewer thought it was interesting how my resume was different from the standard ones they usually received. I legitimately enjoyed working there and am considering going back after finishing my PhD program, which starts this fall. I recommend historians begin to look at industries in the private sector in addition to working in government or at NGOs.

[urbanhistorynerd]

I agree to the comments on history Ph.Ds in the private market. 

Getting a Ph.D., in any social science or humanities gives you an incredible array of skills. At my school we have a AHA career diversity grant where we gave out a career diversity fellowship. We're currently organizing current Ph.D. holders from a variety of fields to come talk, resume workshops, interviews, etc. Like I said, a lot of graduates at my school work for presses, NGOs, non-profits, historic preservation, or state, local, and city government.

[TMP]

51 minutes ago, urbanhistorynerd said:

I agree to the comments on history Ph.Ds in the private market. 

Getting a Ph.D., in any social science or humanities gives you an incredible array of skills. At my school we have a AHA career diversity grant where we gave out a career diversity fellowship. We're currently organizing current Ph.D. holders from a variety of fields to come talk, resume workshops, interviews, etc. Like I said, a lot of graduates at my school work for presses, NGOs, non-profits, historic preservation, or state, local, and city government.

Yes, but not everyone wants to abandon doing historical work for non-history positions.... One has to be willing to leave their history career behind to be willing to go into kinds of jobs (unless they're willing to continue research/writing outside of their regular work hours).

[psstein]

10 hours ago, derphilosoph said:

I believe more history PhDs should really consider working in the private sector. Many historians think that the main alternatives to academia are either government or NGOs. While both of those are perfectly good career choices, the private sector also has many jobs for which historians might be qualified.

My department had two alumni come in and speak on non-academic career options. If anyone's interested, I can try to dig up either the recording or the slides. Just send me a PM.

As for private sector jobs, like all of us, I'd like to have a tenured academic job. I hope I do, but I'd live with working in the private sector. Academia's lack of defined hours are both a blessing and a curse.

6 hours ago, TMP said:

Yes, but not everyone wants to abandon doing historical work for non-history positions.... One has to be willing to leave their history career behind to be willing to go into kinds of jobs (unless they're willing to continue research/writing outside of their regular work hours).

As harsh as it sounds, one sometimes needs to choose between continuing down a non-productive path (i.e. adjuncting or one temporary position after another) and leaving the field entirely. Unfortunately, some very good scholars get stuck making that choice.

[Sigaba]

14 hours ago, derphilosoph said:

 While both of those are perfectly good career choices, the private sector also has many jobs for which historians might be qualified.

If you're an aspiring or new graduate student and you think you may end up in the private sector, I recommend carefully researching the industries in which you might want to work, the potential impact of AIs and ASIs on those industries, and then using your outside field to develop skills that aren't going to be replaced by an app on a cell phone in the next twenty years.

Simultaneously, I recommend that you locate and read the (in)famous STFU thread over at the CHE fora as well as other resources that will help you learn the fine art of drinking STFU and staying in your lane. Ultimately, work in the private sector is about generating revenue while cutting costs and keeping your bosses happy. Often, the historian's skill set can collide with those objectives, especially when you're convinced that you're right and that your bosses just need to understand where you're coming from so that you can save them from themselves. 

In these situations you'll be Cassandra to Mr/Ms. You Can't Tell Me Shit/Figure It Out and Get It Done. What then?

On top of that, there will be the tension between your political/philosophical viewpoints and the hard reality that vast swaths of the private sector are right of center because Republican politicians promise tax cuts and deregulation. And did your CEO just quote the Great Orange Overlord? Did your managing principal just go on a rant with racist undertones about Americans exercising free speech during the playing of the national anthem? Did the Galadriel of your organization just make a nativist statement in an email to everyone in your division? Yes, yes, and yes and yes! Now, get back to work, and don't forget to fill out your time card project tracking report .

[Katzenmusik]

It's worth it if you don't assume you will end up with a good professor job afterward.  Enjoy the ride!  But make sure to cultivate a wide variety of skills and have a plan for transitioning out at the end.

The people who end up bitter and disappointed tend to be those who over-committed to the faculty career track and face a challenge (including an emotional challenge) in adapting to anything else.

As for the rest of us... we can enjoy these few years of reading, writing, and exploring archives.  We don't have to freak out about the fact that there are only two tenure-track jobs in our field being advertised this year, because that was never the only dream.  

[ExponentialDecay]

On 8/17/2018 at 2:05 AM, Sigaba said:

If you're an aspiring or new graduate student and you think you may end up in the private sector, I recommend carefully researching the industries in which you might want to work, the potential impact of AIs and ASIs on those industries, and then using your outside field to develop skills that aren't going to be replaced by an app on a cell phone in the next twenty years.

Simultaneously, I recommend that you locate and read the (in)famous STFU thread over at the CHE fora as well as other resources that will help you learn the fine art of drinking STFU and staying in your lane. Ultimately, work in the private sector is about generating revenue while cutting costs and keeping your bosses happy. Often, the historian's skill set can collide with those objectives, especially when you're convinced that you're right and that your bosses just need to understand where you're coming from so that you can save them from themselves. 

In these situations you'll be Cassandra to Mr/Ms. You Can't Tell Me Shit/Figure It Out and Get It Done. What then?

On top of that, there will be the tension between your political/philosophical viewpoints and the hard reality that vast swaths of the private sector are right of center because Republican politicians promise tax cuts and deregulation. And did your CEO just quote the Great Orange Overlord? Did your managing principal just go on a rant with racist undertones about Americans exercising free speech during the playing of the national anthem? Did the Galadriel of your organization just make a nativist statement in an email to everyone in your division? Yes, yes, and yes and yes! Now, get back to work, and don't forget to fill out your time card project tracking report .

ehhhhhhh

I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case.

1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit.

2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society.

3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.

 

[Sigaba]

9 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

ehhhhhhh

IMO, in previous posts I believe I've done an adequate job at indicating that I don't subscribe to a "real world" vs not real word POV. 

In my work experience, the workplace can be great, the team mates and managers can have all kinds of POVs, and there can be flexible schedules and relaxed dress codes. However, the bottom line is that the owners of a business, no matter how small or large, or what sector of the economy, or political views of owners,  are interested in making money and ultimately that bottom line will mean that at times they're going to make decisions that worker bees don't like and they're going not going to be particularly interested to hear that you disagree.

[ExponentialDecay]

2 hours ago, Sigaba said:

IMO, in previous posts I believe I've done an adequate job at indicating that I don't subscribe to a "real world" vs not real word POV. 

In my work experience, the workplace can be great, the team mates and managers can have all kinds of POVs, and there can be flexible schedules and relaxed dress codes. However, the bottom line is that the owners of a business, no matter how small or large, or what sector of the economy, or political views of owners,  are interested in making money and ultimately that bottom line will mean that at times they're going to make decisions that worker bees don't like and they're going not going to be particularly interested to hear that you disagree.

I'm not disagreeing with your message, I'm disagreeing with your tone.

And I doubt anyone's been tracking your post history enough to have any indication of what you subscribe to.