What kind of job can I get with an MA in English...?

[princess125]

I don't know if I should pursue a PhD yet. Do you guys think I'll be able to get a job with an MA? Can you be specific about the types of jobs?

[lolopixie]

I have an MA in English and I have a "professional" job. I work at a large corporate bank in the loan modification division as a coach. You can definitely get jobs. Make sure to enhance your research, critical thinking, and writing abilities. I truly believe my MA helped with my promotion to the position I have now because the hiring manager was impressed with my writing abilities. He thought it would be great for me to write the training material. There were 75 applicants for 2 available positions, and I got one of those. So, YES, I think the MA is valuable.

[Timshel]

I graduated with my MA two years ago, and I teach and I'm a writing tutor trainer. I teach at a university now, but I also taught at a community college last year. A couple of my friends who graduated with me work at non profit organizations doing various positions.

[princess125]

lolo, that sounds like something i'd be interested in doing. you mean enhance these assets on your resume, right?

timshel, you can teach at a uni with only an MA?

[Timshel]

lolo, that sounds like something i'd be interested in doing. you mean enhance these assets on your resume, right?

timshel, you can teach at a uni with only an MA?

Yes, as a lecturer. Basically, you can teach the lower level courses. You can teach the basic studies classes like the required composition courses, introduction to literature courses, things like that.

[AhabsAdmissionLetter]

I have a MA in English and am the secretary to a department on my campus. Department secretarial jobs typically require a high school diploma or BA/S, so applying with an MA is a plus not only for credential-based interview opportunities but also because you get to offer higher levels of service, like manuscript prep and finding articles for your faculty. The best part, however, is that you stay in the academic world, where you have unfettered access to faculty. Also, as a department secretary, you could (as is the case with my institution) earn more than a Ph.D. in hand or ABD lecturer teaching 4 courses.

[ComeBackZinc]

Now, I am going to curse myself so that people think I'm some capitalist goon.

But, by any number of metrics, people with MAs outperform the general population economically. People with MAs have a significantly higher median income and lower unemployment. And despite what someone said in another thread, over a lifetime of earnings, you'll more than make back the money that you spend on your MA, especially if you can get any kind of funding or an instate rate. Sure, there's ability effects/selection bias in there, but it appears to be a major advantage.

Uh, sorry.

[DorindaAfterThyrsis]

I'm sure we all know this one, but I couldn't resist....

Just replace the "B" with an "M"

[thestage]

But, by any number of metrics, people with MAs outperform the general population economically.

That says nothing about the degree itself. What it says is as follows:

1. People from higher income families tend to earn more than people from lower income families

2. Smarter people tend to earn more than stupider people

3. People with some measure of dedication and/or personal drive tend to earn more than people without those qualities

Crucial element: the MA itself does not confer any of those things

[ComeBackZinc]

That says nothing about the degree itself. What it says is as follows:

1. People from higher income families tend to earn more than people from lower income families

2. Smarter people tend to earn more than stupider people

3. People with some measure of dedication and/or personal drive tend to earn more than people without those qualities

Crucial element: the MA itself does not confer any of those things

That claim is what I referenced above when I talked about selection bias and ability effects, which are terms I'm guessing you don't recognize. There has actually been a great deal of empirical work done to separate the value of a bachelor's degree from ability effects, and quite rigorously at that; those studies consistently find an advantage to a BA or BS that is greater than that conferred by pure ability. I'm unaware of any similar research concerning the MA, but I could look. Quantitative research on education and pedagogy are my particular academic focus, after all.

In any event-- those are big claims that you're making, without evidence.

[lyonessrampant]

That claim is what I referenced above when I talked about selection bias and ability effects, which are terms I'm guessing you don't recognize. There has actually been a great deal of empirical work done to separate the value of a bachelor's degree from ability effects, and quite rigorously at that; those studies consistently find an advantage to a BA or BS that is greater than that conferred by pure ability. I'm unaware of any similar research concerning the MA, but I could look. Quantitative research on education and pedagogy are my particular academic focus, after all.

In any event-- those are big claims that you're making, without evidence.

ComeBackZinc: You would have more authority than me on this area since it appears to be more related to your focus (I'm a medievalist/early modernist after all!) but for our required pedagody seminar last fall, we spent TONS of time on the evolution of the discipline, especially since the 70s when the contraction in TT jobs began, and your arguments reflect all of the peer-reviewed articles we read (and that I found in addition for my research project). If you're interested aspiring folks, PM me and I can give you some links, but while it is somewhat of a generalization to say that MAs make more on average (the definition of average), it is backed up by stats, especially if you get that MA smartly through a funded or at least partially funded program to attenuate your debt.

[ComeBackZinc]

I don't mean to come off as if I'm sure here; it's certainly possible that the higher earnings and lower unemployment are all selection bias at work. And I should say that I'm generally the guy saying that people shouldn't go if they aren't funded. But the sheer weight of the numbers here make me feel pretty confident. I will try and look to see if there's any research similar to the BA research for MA degrees.

[thestage]

That claim is what I referenced above when I talked about selection bias and ability effects, which are terms I'm guessing you don't recognize.

I just didn't see them.

those studies consistently find an advantage to a BA or BS that is greater than that conferred by pure ability. I'm unaware of any similar research concerning the MA, but I could look.

Big, big difference between a BA/S and an MA. The first is, at this point, an assumed degree. You might not have one, but you will feel the need to justify yourself if you don't. It's a general education thing, a proof of competence (though it of course isn't even any of those things in reality). It's basically a modification of that old adage about marriage: at least someone, somewhere didn't find you completely awful. An MA, by contrast, is a professional degree, entirely unassumed, and comes with the (popular) taint of academia without the ability to actually find employment in academia. Of course you might be right anyway, but the correlation between undergrad and MA degrees is pretty suspect.

In any event-- those are big claims that you're making, without evidence.

I won't pretend I have evidence, but none of those claims seem all that extraordinary to me. Of course you can't measure 3 in any broad, objective sense, and 1 and 2 assume that richer and smarter people, respectively, are substantially more likely to earn an MA than poor and stupid people, but those assumptions themselves seem pretty innocuous.

Edited March 1, 2012 by thestage

[lyonessrampant]

Wow, thestage, really? There are actually lots of studies out there that support ComeBackZinc's position. . .and you just resort to an assumed elitist position? That's cool. . .I guess (not).

[ComeBackZinc]

My impression is that you're understating the number of jobs that require an MA, particularly given recent complaints about "degree creep." To be honest, I'm not sure that more jobs requiring a masters is a good thing, but the idea is out there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edlife/edl-24masters-t.html?pagewanted=all

But I wouldn't pretend that article tells the whole story.

[thestage]

Wow, thestage, really? There are actually lots of studies out there that support ComeBackZinc's position. . .and you just resort to an assumed elitist position? That's cool. . .I guess (not).

I question the validity of any of these unnamed studies that don't control for ability. And so does he, for the record. And of course I'm being elitist--we're talking about elite degrees. Objectively. Do you have an MA? Congratulations, 95% of the populace (or whatever) doesn't. What's your point? If you are questioning my assertion that smarter, richer people are more likely to earn an MA than poor or stupid people--well, I don't know what to tell you. How many poor people are realistically finding the money to earn an MA? Or prioritizing an advanced degree? How many people of below average aptitude according to any number of statistical indicators are both seriously persuing a post graduate degree, and then getting past admissions committees? I'd advise you to look to the same kinds of studies you are referring to.

Also unmentioned in this thread: subject matter. An MA in a STEM field, I would think, is almost certainly going to give you an economic leg up as a direct result of the degree. In English? Where there is no clear employment niche at all?

Edited March 1, 2012 by thestage

[ComeBackZinc]

That assumption-- that humanities majors are inherently disadvantaged in this economy, and only STEM people are rewarded-- is commonly asserted but simply not supportable with evidence.

http://www.outsideth...nd-education-2/

And students with English degrees outperform, on average, students with "practical" degrees like education, nursing, criminology, or communications. Which is to say nothing about those of us who, like me, didn't choose their major or degree based on earnings potential. While I won't pretend that a newspaper article is as rigorous as a peer-reviewed study, that article and many more like it are available with a little Googling. There is at least anecdotal evidence of a broad growth in the number of jobs requiring or recommending a master's degree.

I'm not at all sure why you assume that the studies lyoness refers to don't control for selection effects; that's a pretty standard part of that kind of research. You know, I'm willing to have a discussion about data and methodology. I do that everyday, after all. I'm also willing to have a casual, off-the-cuff conversation about these issues and admit that none of us is 100% sure. But you seem to be going back and forth in a way that's not very productive.

Edit: Forgot to put the link to expected income by major.

http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

Edited March 1, 2012 by ComeBackZinc

[lyonessrampant]

I question the validity of any of these unnamed studies that don't control for ability. And so does he, for the record. And of course I'm being elitist--we're talking about elite degrees. Objectively. Do you have an MA? Congratulations, 95% of the populace (or whatever) doesn't. What's your point?

Also unmentioned in this thread: subject matter. An MA in a STEM field, I would think, is almost certainly going to give you an economic leg up as a direct result of the degree. In English? Where there is no clear employment niche at all?

Since I have to go unearth a big file dealing with humanities degrees, I will post all of the links tomorrow. Of course, obviously, STEM fields translate into higher income potentials (unless you have hyperspecific reasearch areas that aren't sale-able to industry researchers).

Apart from the articles that you may anticipate (and I would broadly encourage since everyone here is considering a profession in this field): I think it is critically important to interrogate an elitist approach internal to the field and the implications that has for widespread acceptance. Look: Lit theory texts used to be widespread. C.S. Lewis's Allegory of Love was not as popular but pretty popular in comparison to the Narnia texts. Robertson in the 60s was widely read. A few scholars today still are. I speak for my field so I cite people like Greenblatt, but there is an integral connection between dismissive elitism and alienation from wider readership (or even appreciable readership in the field). The moment you dismiss popular appeal is the moment you have limited your potential reach and, I would say, applicability.

Further, I'll look for the sources from which I glean this information, MA holders aren't disposable (for the funding of MAs) OR a limited degree (a seemingly contradictory position). There is a specific utility to the MA and it is wider spread (though across disciplines). I would argue that in the US the MA is similarly far more widespread than 5% and increasingly useful. Again, I'll get you the links, but as our economy becomes hypercompetitive, degree requirements increase.

Finally, English has quite a broad employment niche. It equips you for editing, graphic accompaniment, legal support, teaching, research, nonprofit support, etc. I don't feel the need to enumerate this as you can google it. .. Some research skills, yeah, that comes with the English degree, too.

[thestage]

That assumption-- that humanities majors are inherently disadvantaged in this economy, and only STEM people are rewarded-- is commonly asserted but simply not supportable with evidence.

But we're not talking about undergraduate degrees, we're talking about the MA. I don't think that STEM undergraduates have an inherent advantage, because there are only so many STEM jobs. Those degrees are direct paths to entry level positions in those fields, but if there are X jobs and X + More Than X degree holders, that is quite irrelevant. In the broader job market, Mr. Boss Guy at Cubicle Encorporated isn't super interested in why you think chemistry is a more productive field than history. So there's that. But that changes quite substantially at the MA level, where there will never be more postgraduate degree holders in STEM fields than there are, at the very least, entry level positions, whereas the humanities MA does not at all offer a clear path to employment. If we get to the point where the BA is so assumed and so valueless that general employment people begin to look to MA holders as they once did BA holders, then yes, I would assume the MA would hold objective value. But I would have to be shown that that is indeed the case--and if it were it certainly wouldn't be something to be celebrated, as in that scenario you aren't earning anything with the MA so much as you are propping up the complete depreciation of what you already have. And of course we'd be further locking people from lower class families into the lower class, unless the government starts to offer financial aid for graduate studies to the degree that occurs at the undergraduate level, which has about a zero percent chance of ever happening.

Edited March 1, 2012 by thestage

[Stately Plump]

Of the 1.9% of unemployed people holding a doctoral degree:

97% have a PhD in the humanities (Philosophy, English, History, Languages...)

2% have a doctorate degree in some other field

the other 1% is independently wealth and chooses not to work

jk, just trying to brighten the thread up a bit

[ComeBackZinc]

So you'll agree that the crux of the question is whether you are in fact correct when you claim that there are not a lot of jobs that require a generic MA or a specific MA in the humanities?

[ComeBackZinc]

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10303267-where-the-good-jobs-are-coming

a new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics adds another piece of evidence that it usually pays off, literally, to shoot for that master’s degree or higher.

The BLS this week released a detailed forecast for how it expects the job market to change in the current decade (the '10s?).

Among the findings: Jobs that require some sort of postsecondary degree for entry are expected to grow at the fastest clip from 2010 to 2020.

The report found that jobs that require a masters’ degree or more are projected to grow by 21.7 percent over that decade, to a little more than 2.4 million total jobs, compared with just 12.2 percent growth in jobs that require only a high school diploma.

Here's the BLS study for your perusal:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf

[lyonessrampant]

I would echo that clarification. . .cuz I have a whole file full of articles about the employability of post-BA-holding degrees in the humanities. . .if you just want those instead, that would relieve me from unloading my bibliography if you don't want it. . .

[ComeBackZinc]

That report was released less than a month ago, incidentally.

[rainy_day]

Apart from the articles that you may anticipate (and I would broadly encourage since everyone here is considering a profession in this field): I think it is critically important to interrogate an elitist approach internal to the field and the implications that has for widespread acceptance. Look: Lit theory texts used to be widespread. C.S. Lewis's Allegory of Love was not as popular but pretty popular in comparison to the Narnia texts. Robertson in the 60s was widely read. A few scholars today still are. I speak for my field so I cite people like Greenblatt, but there is an integral connection between dismissive elitism and alienation from wider readership (or even appreciable readership in the field). The moment you dismiss popular appeal is the moment you have limited your potential reach and, I would say, applicability.

My comment is a tangental, but I really like this point, Lyonness, and want to expand on it.

I'll add that, while we may think our ideas are so advanced and elite we can't possibly share them with "the masses," that is deeply flawed and problematic thinking. My brother and father both work as commercial fisherman, and neither has a college degree. I regularly tell them about my research projects, and they find it really interesting. And my work is all about theory. I spent a long time discussing Foucault with each of them, and they loved it. My brother has since gone around and told other people about Foucault's notions of discourse & power. He's also provided me with some interesting ideas and valuable feedback.

I tell you all of this because a) I have an awesome family and b ) I think we should constantly look outward with our work. The perception that our work is insular produces that very reality.

Edited March 1, 2012 by rainy_day