Going into History for Non-Academic/Teaching Purposes?

[Kevin1990]

Hi all,

 

I was wondering if it would be feasible to study history on the graduate level only to go into a non-academic/non-teaching field with it. As I know it's often written on here(and other places too) about how the study of history "only get's one so far" and" how it's hard to get into many career paths with any advanced degree in the subject.

 

I am currently an undergrad finishing my BA in History and really like the fields within it that I am studying at the moment(Military, International and Strategic History amongst others). I ask because even though the realm of academia does appeal to me, I have also found myself interested in the policy making and think tank worlds since I'm very close to Washington D.C. and those particular institutions. During my time interacting and listening to talks from established people at those places I've noticed many of them did not have have the typical degrees you would expect of those in such policy oriented organzations and in fact quite a few had advanced degrees in history.

 

Therefore, I was wondering if it's feasible or even possible under normal circumstances to go to grad school to study history if you are planning on doing something else besides academia.  I also  hear that policymaking/think tank organizations are crap shoots even for those with the typical degrees in subjects like public policy, political science, or economics. Then again I also hear and notice that think tanks across the spectrum whether it be CSIS, U.S. Institute of Peace  Chatham House, Heritage, Brookings, Center for American Progress or Brookings like to see academic diversity in the types of  people they hire(with many historians included).

 

This is all hypothetical though for the time being and still very well into the future for me. Also given my cross section of specific interests it's still uncertain for me exactly what I should go to grad school for in the future after I finish up my undergrad this summer.

 

I would therefore like to hear opinions on what I've written above.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

 

 

[TMP]

I sent you a PM.

[czesc]

I'd be very interested in hearing about making this transition as well. I earned a law degree before I applied to grad school, if that makes any difference to think tanks.

Edited December 28, 2012 by czesc

[kdavid]

I sent you a PM.I sent you a PM.

 

 

 

Can the rest of us be privy to the PM?

 

I'm also interested in policy making positions, state department, etc., and would like to hear about anyone's experience.

[Kevin1990]

Whoo!

 

Glad I made this thread, as it seems like I'm not the only one studying history who had the same thoughts!

[annieca]

I think it really depends on if you strictly mean an MA or if you mean a PhD. I would say YES, 100%, there are options for History Master's holders who don't want to go into academia.

As historians we are prized by organizations for the fact that we have to be able to write effectively, argue effectively and you know, generally know what we're talking about. Never doubt how useful our research skills are to companies, especially those think-tank places you mentioned or non-profits/NGOs.

That being said, I don't know if doing a History master's will make a huge difference if you're competing against those with public policy degrees, etc. Having a Master's puts you on a more even playing field as those with other master's but not above.

The National Council on Public History has some great resources about life outside of academia and I would highly recommend perusing their website to see if they can better answer your question than I can.

Hope that helps!

[oceansize]

This may be oversimplifying things:  while I think it's certainly possible to get a position like this with a history degree, I don't think graduate school in history is the best path to this career (for most people).  You mention that you're close to Washington and that you've had contact with people in your goal career.  I'd write to/sit down with as many of these people as possible and take a look at your options.  Maybe an MA/PhD in history makes sense for you; more likely, there is a better path to take to reach your goal. 

 

Talking to people who actually work for think tanks, etc. is probably more useful than talking to people in history, since the goal of most graduate programs is to prepare students for a career in academia.

[Usmivka]

I know this is probably not what you are thinking of, but there are academic jobs that aren't "academic," if that makes any sense. I view policy centers as research institutions, and others have mentioned this outlet above. But various organizations hire historians on short term (a year or two) to research their own history, including independent laboratories and universities, civic institutions, and NPOs, if contract work is your thing. Finally, even if you don't want to ever do any history work again, a PhD indicates that you are a successful self-started, capable of defining a complex problem and engaging in original, thoughtful research to make and present an insightful conclusion. Those are valuable job skills in any field, so if you enjoy history, that seems like as good a place as any to get the piece of paper that evidences your analytical abilities (if a PhD is truly the most direct route into what you want to do).

[czesc]

Finally, even if you don't want to ever do any history work again, a PhD indicates that you are a successful self-started, capable of defining a complex problem and engaging in original, thoughtful research to make and present an insightful conclusion. Those are valuable job skills in any field, so if you enjoy history, that seems like as good a place as any to get the piece of paper that evidences your analytical abilities (if a PhD is truly the most direct route into what you want to do).

 

I would be wary of this line of reasoning. While there are definitely employers who feel this way, there are others who see the PhD as evidence that you have less experience in an office/other business setting, that you will tend to be less subordinate, that you will jump to an academic job when one becomes available (or to a higher-paid job), or simply that you are vaguely "overqualified" for a position for any other reason. In addition, you should think about where your competition will have been acquiring experience and whether you will have any chance going head to head with them if they have done work that's much more directly analogous to that which you're applying to do. A PhD's skills are transferrable, but that doesn't mean they're competitive with someone who has more exact qualifications.

 

Sorry to be a killjoy; I just wanted to make it clear that a PhD is not just a win-win and that there are definite trade-offs to getting one: namely, you will probably be no more or even less marketable for the vast majority of jobs outside academia.

 

EDIT: Note what I wrote above is true in the US; I don't think it's as true in other countries, where PhDs are more common general qualifications.

Edited January 10, 2013 by czesc

[BerenErchamion]

One thought I've had (and I've mentioned in my SOPs, when they ask for career goals) is using the knowledge I would gain from a Ph.D. of how to "do" history to help develop software solutions (bibliography or note management, information retrieval, even optical-character recognition for enhancing old and faded documents) that are specifically tailored to the needs of historians.  Computer programming has been a longtime hobby of mine, and I'm involved in a few practical OSS projects as well as some personal, theoretical/experimental projects.  It seemed to me that this would be a very useful way to blend my intended vocation with my avocation, and take advantage of the fact that I can speak the language of those who would be actually doing the design and implementation of these software systems.

 

And if that doesn't pan out, I'm always interested in being a regular feature writer for publications dealing with my political persuasions or personal interests.

[czesc]

I'd stick with programming (and definitely get a qualification in it of some kind while doing so). For all the terrible odds of becoming a tenured history prof, becoming a staff writer at some political magazine, at least on a salary that'd feed you, is nigh impossible.

[golfinggurl815]

Decaf does Indiana offer any Digital Humanities initiatives for you or is it more of a traditional school?

[CrazyCatLady80]

My advisors only tell people to get a PhD if they want to teach at the college level. If you are interested in doing non-academic work, you are better off going for your MA. 

 

Personally, I would say apply for a MA program. After a year and if you cannot imagine life without getting a PhD, go for it.  

[czesc]

Caveats to that: first, I wouldn't pursue an MA you have to pay for in this situation. Why not apply for a PhD and leave, if it wasn't the person's bag of tea and they could be employable, after the first two years of coursework, with the honorary MA (attending an institution where it's offered, of course?)

 

Otherwise, the person is condemned (if we're talking about a US PhD program) not only to potentially paying for a standalone MA, but to do another two years of coursework upon deciding to pursue a PhD. 

 

Of course, all of this assumes the person could get into a PhD program without first getting an MA to begin with.

 

Second, there really is value to having a PhD vs. an MA at think tanks and in the government. At many of these institutions, it mean automatically being at a higher pay grade, and it implies a certain level of expertise and research experience that you wouldn't be seen as having with an MA alone. 

[CageFree]

If the OP is sure he or she does not want a PhD, it seems to me that it'd be dishonest to apply to a program only to drop out after being done with coursework.

[CrazyCatLady80]

It is dishonest, but I did have a professor I was working with as an archivist suggest it to me. I couldn't do it....not too good in the lying department. 

[czesc]

I have had professors suggest it as well. And I only think it would be dishonest if the person was absolutely sure he or she didn't want to continue through with the PhD.

 

And don't forget that the person who leaves to do something else is going to be "giving back" to the department by being the one they point to in order to say "see, you can do anything with a graduate education in history!" It's a good advertisement for the relevance of the field.

[Wicked_Problem]

Food for thought from others better versed than I on this topic: I recommend the above discussion thread - especially New England Nat's posts...

[Wicked_Problem]

If anyone knows how to generate forced carriage returns when posting from an iPad, please PM me. I have had some posts come out completely unreadable because mine seem to be automatically changed into a space or ignored altogether... See one above...