PhD with no intent of academia

[Jahiliyya]

The common refrain in this forum, and the common advice given to undergraduates considering graduate school, is to do so only if completely dedicated to a life in academia--and with full understanding of the abysmal job market. I completely understand that perspective, and having sat on search committees for TT hires, I can appreciate just how over-saturated the history field is.

But I do not want to teach, or enter academia. Despite that, my advisers are urging me to pursue a PhD, as a necessary credential in my field, foreign policy and development. For example, a PhD is a basic requirement for advancing in think tanks and other research institutions, and provides a great deal of credibility. I have been told by multiple people, both tenured academics and people in policy, to get a PhD as quickly as possible--publish sparingly, use summers for policy experience, and remember that "the only good dissertation is a done dissertation."

But a difficulty seem to emerge from that. PhD programs are focused on producing scholars to enter and reinforce the existing academic system. I can't imagine advisers taking kindly to my goals, either at the admissions stage, or once matriculated, when they would have other students who would want to become scholarly superstars.

I have long been interested in doing a PhD in history, despite the time and energy that it requires. There are several exciting research projects that I hope to pursue in my field (Middle East), that could potentially frame a dissertation. I'm willing to spend months bogged down in archives--and indeed, love doing so. But that must somehow be balanced against the fact that PhD programs don't seem well structured for people who don't want to follow the over-saturated path of academia.

[OnceAndFutureGrad]

I don't have any answers for you, but rather a voice of agreement. I attempted to get onto the scholarly track - you know, where you aren't truly happy until you have your leather-patched tweed jacket full tenure appointment at an internationally prestigious research university. But after less than two years, I realized that I'm too pragmatic and possess too strong a self-preservation instinct to spend the rest of my life bashing my head against the ivory tower. I like history too much to leave, but I dislike academia too much to stay.

So, I turned 90 degrees to the left and am now trying museum studies, because I think that the best use of my skills and preferences is in public education. In the "olden" days, a history BA was probably all that was needed before beginning a career in museums, and I believe that even up to the 1990s a Masters was more than sufficient to begin. But now everyone has five internships and a PhD under their belt before even applying...it's to the PhD we go!

Like you, I'll love being bogged down in archives for months or even years, but you won't catch me pretending it's how I want to spend the rest of my career (any longer). But of course I say that in hushed tones, just in case anyone who's listening demands total allegience to academia...

[MrArl]

Jahiliyya,

You'll probably have better luck with such a question over on the Political Science board; I imagine folks that frequent that board would be much better informed about the argument than those of us in (or aspiring to be) the History field.

That being said, I had a similar struggle as I neared the end of undergrad. As a History/IR dual-major, I had always been most comfortable in History and almost solely utilized qualitative methods in my IR work. Yet I always fretted about the "usefulness" and "marketability" of History as a specialty, so I forced myself to gravitate toward IR, pursuing honors in that discipline and eventually going on to a Masters in the UK (which, luckily for me, was much more forgiving of my qualitative proclivity than a US polisci department would have been). I contemplated going straight on to a PhD program in PoliSci, but decided to try my hand in the policy world before, which I am very glad I did. Several years of working in the national security/foreign policy field in DC and abroad (including a civilian deployment to Afghanistan) sharpened my desire to return to academic study, but also confirmed for me what I had been struggling against since undergrad. Academically, in terms of both subject matter and methodology, I am much more comfortable in History than PoliSci; now, having embraced that, I'm looking forward to entering a PhD program in History (assuming acceptance, of course!) and dedicating myself to its study.

All of that was the long way of saying perhaps your best bet is to delay applying for and entering graduate school for a few years. Maintain good relationships with your potential recommenders and keep up with the literature in your field, but go work in the field that you think you'd like to. You may find that you dislike it, or that you'd prefer academia; alternatively, you may find that you love it, and you don't need to spend 5 years in a PhD program to get ahead in the field. If there's anything I learned about the security/foreign policy field is that there is no single way to succeed in it. One person may have used a PhD to launch their career, while another leveraged their personal relationships to springboard into their dream position. Alternatively, you could pursue a Masters or PhD in a less-academic but related field such as Public Policy or Public Affairs, both of which average roughly 3-4 years to PhD completion. They require significant quantitative skill and study (most require multivariable calc completed as of application), and while original research for the dissertation is necessary, they are geared toward policymakers rather than academics, thus the shorter timeframe.

My advice: take some time. Graduate school will still be there.

[SapperDaddy]

you may find this article interesting http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2011/1110/1110pre1.cfm

[oseirus]

The question then I have is this: what is the downside for the schools you are applying to, if you aren't interested in the academic track? Is it something that you would need to openly discuss with them from the get-go or is it something that does not need to be divulged?

[SapperDaddy]

The question then I have is this: what is the downside for the schools you are applying to, if you aren't interested in the academic track? Is it something that you would need to openly discuss with them from the get-go or is it something that does not need to be divulged?

All that I've talked to has asked my future goals. I have so far just answered honestly and said I want a job where ever I can find one, and then talked about what the job market is like.

[TMP]

The question then I have is this: what is the downside for the schools you are applying to, if you aren't interested in the academic track? Is it something that you would need to openly discuss with them from the get-go or is it something that does not need to be divulged?

You'd be considered as poor investment of time and resources (read $$$$). Departments are under pressure by university administrations to produce scholas/professors. Getting a non-academic job isn't ideal for the university administrators who are doling out the money. I think the history field is trying to figure out how to best justify its existence and the need for $$$ to support graduate students by balancing the desire of the university administrations (who want to see students go on to become professors) and the students (who, well, need any kind of job).

The best thing to do is pay lip service. Never, ever tell anyone in your department unless your adviser brings up the issue of preparing you for the post-PhD life and says "the market sucks. What do you really want to do with the PhD? Are you interested in working for the government? If so, we should look into internships..." Keep low-key among your peers. You need to position yourself as someone who is absolutely worth investing in time and energy for professors and other graduate students. You need to wait for the right timing.

Getting a PhD is much more than doing archival work, it's also about surviving academia until you get your diploma, 7-9 years later.

[crazedandinfused]

I would take what MrArl and TMP have said very seriously. I have a Master's in International Development, and throughout grad school I was pushed more and more towards academia in general and history in particular. History is VERY different from the policy world. You need to really ask yourself which discipline you want to go into. There are no easy answers to that. It took me years of unfulfilling graduate study and personal exploration to arrive at academic history as a goal. If you want to be a think-tanker then you might consider getting an MA in the history of your area of interest and subsequently getting a PHD from a policy school. If I were you I would do it in that order, because an MA will go a long way towards your PHD coursework while a policy Master's (in my case MID) won't do much for your coursework in a history PHD. In fact, i might have to get a whole new stand-alone MA if this application season goes poorly. I could go on forever. If you have more questions, PM me. I've been in a similar boat.

Edited January 14, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[aspiringhistorian]

I think that an admissions committee is mostly interested in seeing that you're committing to a certain direction and that a PhD in from that institution is going to be worth something. I feel like they always hear that their applicants want to go into academia and it might actually be interesting for them to see a different application for that sort of education- so long as it's relevant. It's true that the job market in academia is extremely competitive so it wouldn't be realistic for them to expect all of their students to go down that path.

[holdon]

Why would you do a PhD in history? You should apply for a Policy PhD or a development PhD. Apply to places like Harvard kennedy, Princeton WWS, Columbia SIPA or overseas. For development PhDs! A history Phd will be of absolutely no help in the field. And don't say "transferable skill" or I will say "hand me a dagger"

[Sigaba]

If you want to be a think-tanker then you might consider getting an MA in the history of your area of interest and subsequently getting a PHD from a policy school. If I were you I would do it in that order, because an MA will go a long way towards your PHD coursework while a policy Master's (in my case MID) won't do much for your coursework in a history PHD.

As an alternative to CandI's thoughtful plan, you might pursue a doctorate in political science at an institution that does not mind students who have policy-oriented career objectives and do your outside field in history. (Finding an academic historian who will support your aspirations may still end up being a challenge.)

[natsteel]

You'd be considered as poor investment of time and resources (read $$$$). Departments are under pressure by university administrations to produce scholas/professors. Getting a non-academic job isn't ideal for the university administrators who are doling out the money. I think the history field is trying to figure out how to best justify its existence and the need for $$$ to support graduate students by balancing the desire of the university administrations (who want to see students go on to become professors) and the students (who, well, need any kind of job).

From another perspective... There's been a push by the AHA in the face of the job market to have doctoral students in history consider other career paths and for departments to support them and even assist them in doing so. You might find particular departments a bit more open to alternative career prospects. However, I would second ticklemepink's advice to apply as normal and just keep your post-graduation plans on the down-low.

[holdon]

The common refrain in this forum, and the common advice given to undergraduates considering graduate school, is to do so only if completely dedicated to a life in academia--and with full understanding of the abysmal job market. I completely understand that perspective, and having sat on search committees for TT hires, I can appreciate just how over-saturated the history field is.

But I do not want to teach, or enter academia. Despite that, my advisers are urging me to pursue a PhD, as a necessary credential in my field, foreign policy and development. For example, a PhD is a basic requirement for advancing in think tanks and other research institutions, and provides a great deal of credibility. I have been told by multiple people, both tenured academics and people in policy, to get a PhD as quickly as possible--publish sparingly, use summers for policy experience, and remember that "the only good dissertation is a done dissertation."

But a difficulty seem to emerge from that. PhD programs are focused on producing scholars to enter and reinforce the existing academic system. I can't imagine advisers taking kindly to my goals, either at the admissions stage, or once matriculated, when they would have other students who would want to become scholarly superstars.

I have long been interested in doing a PhD in history, despite the time and energy that it requires. There are several exciting research projects that I hope to pursue in my field (Middle East), that could potentially frame a dissertation. I'm willing to spend months bogged down in archives--and indeed, love doing so. But that must somehow be balanced against the fact that PhD programs don't seem well structured for people who don't want to follow the over-saturated path of academia.

I really think you should do the Policy PhD! You could take History/Near Eastern Studies MA courses anyway. And you'd be much more marketable in the long run.

[Sigaba]

The best thing to do is pay lip service. Never, ever tell anyone in your department unless your adviser brings up the issue of preparing you for the post-PhD life and says "the market sucks. What do you really want to do with the PhD? Are you interested in working for the government? If so, we should look into internships..." Keep low-key among your peers. You need to position yourself as someone who is absolutely worth investing in time and energy for professors and other graduate students. You need to wait for the right timing.

Getting a PhD is much more than doing archival work, it's also about surviving academia until you get your diploma, 7-9 years later.

However, I would second ticklemepink's advice to apply as normal and just keep your post-graduation plans on the down-low.

MOO, there's a tremendous difference between going along to get along and STFU on the one hand and actively engaging in a pattern of deception on the other.

From a purely pragmatic POV, two things are likely. First, that one's PoI's will realize that one has been less than upfront with them. Second, that one will need said PoI's somewhere down the line.

IMO, one's interests would be better served by picking a course of study thoughtfully, submitting a well crafted SoP that argues how one's career objective advances the House of Klio, and treating one's PoI's with the same level of dignity and respect one would like to receive.

[Swagato]

Led by Anthony Grafton, the AHA is currently leading academic bodies in pushing for valorization of non-traditional academic work as a viable career track. Of course, we know that non-traditional careers have always been around; it isn't anything new. But what is new today is that people are finally pushing for equal acceptance, and a break away from the orthodox 'stigma' that long accompanied such shifts away from academia. This is a great thing, and you need to take advantage of this.

If you begin in 2012, you won't finish until, perhaps, 2017 at an early estimate. New ranks of professors are swelling who have grown up in a more 'wired' era, who are far more attuned to the plethora of career options available apart from the traditional tenure-hunt. I would look into the leading programs in your field, and I would reach out to junior (but established) faculty with frankness. I would especially reach out to programs that have the reputation of being 'feeders' for thinktanks (Kennedy, etc.). History is especially marketable today more than ever if you are interested in the Middle East. Combining it with any sort of policy work will make you very, very valuable.

The one thing I would NOT do is deceive your future advisor, or department, or anything. It is far, far better to be viewed--whether with disdain by a fuddy-duddy stuck in the 1970s-mindset, or with respect by a newer-generation faculty member--as someone who leveraged a history PhD into policy/thinktank work/non-traditional academic work, than to leave the scar of deception for life.

Besides, not everyone at this level is in it for academia, however much we may dream of it. My feeling is that admissions committees know already that people go for a PhD in order to pursue research. Academic? Great! Non-traditional? Increasingly acceptable.

[crater21]

Have you considered getting a PhD in the UK? You'd be done in three years (4 with a Masters). In contrast, North American PhDs can take anywhere between 5 - 7 years, maybe more. To me, spending that much time without the goal of going into academia just seems unwise.

In the UK, it is very common for PhD students to pursue non-academic careers, partly because the degree is so short (it's not uncommon to do a BA, MA, and PhD in 7 years total). One of the reasons why the degree is short is because it's purely research-based, with little to no teaching commitments. Since you don't want to teach anyway, that would work for you.

Places like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE are extremely well-regarded in foreign policy / international development circles, and London is quite the hub for think tanks and NGOs that work in those fields. So, it might be a good fit for you.

[simone von c]

This is an interesting situation. In my opinion and experience, like the AHA, universities are beginning to acknowledge (reluctantly) that some PhDs won't land tenure track jobs, and thus dutifully they counsel interviewees and new admissions that there are career options other than university professor. But I believe the departments continue to hope (as do we students), that the job market will change. The major programs are not yet ready to admit (publicly) that some of their graduates will not find jobs in academia. So (as TMP says), while your application could be derailed if you bluntly admit you have no interest in academia, as Sigaba says you cannot be deceitful. How do you know what you will want to do five to eight years from now, Jahiliyya? Can you open your mind to all professional options, academic and otherwise? This would be the best attitude, in my opinion.

[oseirus]

If it is not profitable for the universities to fund someone not looking for the academic track wouldn't that person be able to still find funding elsewhere? My question is more so geared towards admittance rather than funding, which seems to be the tack people are taking or am I just not reading this correctly?

[Jahiliyya]

Why would you do a PhD in history? You should apply for a Policy PhD or a development PhD. Apply to places like Harvard kennedy, Princeton WWS, Columbia SIPA or overseas. For development PhDs! A history Phd will be of absolutely no help in the field. And don't say "transferable skill" or I will say "hand me a dagger"

Given the length of PhDs, and the tremendous level of personal and intellectual investment, I would only consider doing it in a field that I truly love. And that is History--you may be correct that a policy PhD would "make more sense" professionally, and I have looked at those programs, but I can't see myself doing the 5+ years in those disciplines. Also, history is quite essential for the type of international work that I hope to do (I am hesitant to say more than that on an open forum).

[holdon]

Sounds reasonable. However, also bear in mind that you could do a shorter PhD program in policy/dev/ir etc in the UK for example. It would take a minimum of three years there. Why don't you think about doing a history research Master's in the UK, like a two year MPHIL to see if you like it?