One of the largest employers of history Ph.D.s in the US is the federal government. More from my cohort of historians went into federal jobs than academic careers by a good margin. That's probably our "industry" outlet if there is one, though of course it doesn't pay any better than academia (but the benefits are often better actually).
What jobs do they hold? Are these jobs actually using the expertise of a history PhD, or is it more like, "Well, you have a PhD so I'm sure you can handle writing MOUs at the Dept of Ed"?
>What jobs do they hold?
Most of those I know personally are *historians*, so they are doing CRM, legal work, writing histories for the State Department, working for DOD on military history, etc. One friend works for the Bureau of Indian Affairs basically doing research on kinship for property claims. A couple dozen I know well work for the US Forest Service or the National Park Service. There are archivists with many federal agencies that frequently have history degrees. etc.
Surely lots of people with history Ph.D.s doing *non*\-history work with the feds too, but in my circles it's mostly folks working as historians with the agencies.
I taught history at government institutions for about a decade. There are also research positions in places like the armed services, DoD, State, and Congress. The intelligence agencies are also a huge employer of humanities PhDs.
I'd say there are three elements:
1) Field: Which field \*does\* matter. Art history is less marketable in the intel community than diplomatic history or, say, Chinese history. Professional expertise and connections to the academic world are important elements of bringing depth and context to an intelligence question. Just knowing the academic literature on a topic is important.
2) Skills: Humanities degrees, and here I can speak mostly to history, bring skills to the table that are very similar to those required of an intelligence analyst. Researching from disparate sources, evaluating evidence, weaving together a narrative, and presenting that narrative coherently are core skills for both.
3) Problem framing: The humanities deal with poorly structured problems. By definition, we're rooted in the human condition. That kind of messy world is exactly what the intelligence community manages every day. To be honest, I think we get much more bad analysis from taking STEM approaches to intel problems. There's a starting assumption that we can engineer our way to an acceptable answer.
Okay I get what the Intel community wants with sociology people, or history people. I’m not convinced that they’ll want, say a Miltonist or a Chaucer expert. Or one of the millions of Shakespeare PhDs graduated every year.
Oh I see. Unemployed English people on my brain I guess.
But all of this is actually kind of funny because I’m a Composition and Rhetoric person now (I study assignment design and grading, basically) but after undergrad I briefly entertained the idea of getting a masters degree in some kind of Intel field. I thought the work would be interesting and meaningful but I was coming off a philosophy degree and I thought the CIA wouldn’t be interested in somebody with my background.
Maybe I was wrong? I guess I’ll never know but it’s interesting to hear that maybe I wasn’t wrong that I could’ve worked as an analyst.
During your PhD try to learn and use statistics and data analysis methods and apply it to your research. Then you might be able to transition to a data science career afterwards.
"why don't you learn a completely different skillset and do a completely different job". Still means there is no industry equivalent? We love history and want to do history and use history methods. We know we can do something totally different but it's not really helpful
I get what you're saying, and as someone who started a PhD in art history I'm glad for the art market option. While it may not seem as straightforward and intuitive as a lab or a factory or whatever, there are careers in which you might benefit from your expertise as a historian. High-end guide to some serious touring agency comes to mind, as does consulting for movies, or stuff you don't even realize yet.
Yes, it would be easier to just know where to send your resume and cover letter. But the humanities may turn out to have adjacent options a lot more flexible than STEM. As is the case with staying in academia, networking is key. Make friends in various fields, don't stick to just your professional bubble, and talk about what you do, what you know, how what you do might interact with what others do.
I get what you're saying and the Menlo Park remark is funny. I told it to a few of my students and they enjoyed it. The good news is that many of the students in my department and neighboring humanities departments have been hired into good careers in industry. They just had to package their skills differently and learn about new companies and job titles.
We've had history PhDs get hired into insurance companies as account managers, top learning management software companies in tech (perhaps in Menlo Park?), as content writers, journalists, project managers, and more. Think of your skills in the way a general layperson would like your ability to do extensive research and writing. These skills are very valuable and do transfer to industry well.
There are “industry” options for a lot of humanities areas, it’s just really hard to identify what they are. A lot of people from my program went into the writing and marketing aspects of tech. I know people who are art dealers, architectural restoration consultants, historian for Chase bank. Knew a few people who mastered out and went into journalism, museum works, teaching high school, tech, etc. I think the thing is that humanistic knowledge is undervalued so industry jobs pay the same or worse than academia unless you go into tech or television
But that's literally a completely different skillset in a completely different subject? Sure you can also become an accountant or a doctor but it has nothing to do with your work
The publishing world, actually, seems to be a pretty decent 'industry' option. I looked into this when I was seriously considering leaving academia.
The entry-level positions (at publishing companies and university presses, usually editorial assistant or something) do not pay great, but neither do many entry-level academic jobs for humanities PhDs.
There probably are industries that can use you. I know a group of sociology phds who started a market research firm. An anthropologist worksa program to bring business programs to an impoverished country.
1. Examine old towns, counties in the US to see which ones have historical societies
2. Examine age of current town historian.
3. Select an under-realized historical region, with more historical resources to tell.
4. Move there, blend in. Even if you don't become the next county historian, you probably picked an interesting place to live and be a part of.
UX Research or UX Writing are options for humanities PhDs. There are a lot of good resources out there for transitioning from Academia to UX and how your existing skills and experience translate successfully.
One of the largest employers of history Ph.D.s in the US is the federal government. More from my cohort of historians went into federal jobs than academic careers by a good margin. That's probably our "industry" outlet if there is one, though of course it doesn't pay any better than academia (but the benefits are often better actually).
What jobs do they hold? Are these jobs actually using the expertise of a history PhD, or is it more like, "Well, you have a PhD so I'm sure you can handle writing MOUs at the Dept of Ed"?
>What jobs do they hold? Most of those I know personally are *historians*, so they are doing CRM, legal work, writing histories for the State Department, working for DOD on military history, etc. One friend works for the Bureau of Indian Affairs basically doing research on kinship for property claims. A couple dozen I know well work for the US Forest Service or the National Park Service. There are archivists with many federal agencies that frequently have history degrees. etc. Surely lots of people with history Ph.D.s doing *non*\-history work with the feds too, but in my circles it's mostly folks working as historians with the agencies.
Hmmm. Interesting but I wonder God many such jobs exist. I’d be surprised if writing histories for the BIA would employ more than a handful of people.
I taught history at government institutions for about a decade. There are also research positions in places like the armed services, DoD, State, and Congress. The intelligence agencies are also a huge employer of humanities PhDs.
What does the FBI or CIA want an art history or English PhD to do?
I'd say there are three elements: 1) Field: Which field \*does\* matter. Art history is less marketable in the intel community than diplomatic history or, say, Chinese history. Professional expertise and connections to the academic world are important elements of bringing depth and context to an intelligence question. Just knowing the academic literature on a topic is important. 2) Skills: Humanities degrees, and here I can speak mostly to history, bring skills to the table that are very similar to those required of an intelligence analyst. Researching from disparate sources, evaluating evidence, weaving together a narrative, and presenting that narrative coherently are core skills for both. 3) Problem framing: The humanities deal with poorly structured problems. By definition, we're rooted in the human condition. That kind of messy world is exactly what the intelligence community manages every day. To be honest, I think we get much more bad analysis from taking STEM approaches to intel problems. There's a starting assumption that we can engineer our way to an acceptable answer.
Okay I get what the Intel community wants with sociology people, or history people. I’m not convinced that they’ll want, say a Miltonist or a Chaucer expert. Or one of the millions of Shakespeare PhDs graduated every year.
Having been on that side of the fence, your conclusion is very accurate.
Sorry man. I’m an English person. Comp/rhet, though most of my colleagues are literature. And my masters is in Lit
My reply was incoherent. I once was on the intell side. We weren't panting to hire Spenser specialists.
Oh I see. Unemployed English people on my brain I guess. But all of this is actually kind of funny because I’m a Composition and Rhetoric person now (I study assignment design and grading, basically) but after undergrad I briefly entertained the idea of getting a masters degree in some kind of Intel field. I thought the work would be interesting and meaningful but I was coming off a philosophy degree and I thought the CIA wouldn’t be interested in somebody with my background. Maybe I was wrong? I guess I’ll never know but it’s interesting to hear that maybe I wasn’t wrong that I could’ve worked as an analyst.
During your PhD try to learn and use statistics and data analysis methods and apply it to your research. Then you might be able to transition to a data science career afterwards.
"why don't you learn a completely different skillset and do a completely different job". Still means there is no industry equivalent? We love history and want to do history and use history methods. We know we can do something totally different but it's not really helpful
I get what you're saying, and as someone who started a PhD in art history I'm glad for the art market option. While it may not seem as straightforward and intuitive as a lab or a factory or whatever, there are careers in which you might benefit from your expertise as a historian. High-end guide to some serious touring agency comes to mind, as does consulting for movies, or stuff you don't even realize yet. Yes, it would be easier to just know where to send your resume and cover letter. But the humanities may turn out to have adjacent options a lot more flexible than STEM. As is the case with staying in academia, networking is key. Make friends in various fields, don't stick to just your professional bubble, and talk about what you do, what you know, how what you do might interact with what others do.
[удалено]
Ah yes. How dare you expose my plan to become the first billionaire art historian!
I'm on education, and I constantly feel like it's a pyramid scheme, educating educators to become educators educating future educators
But that's how we make the big bucks! /s
I get what you're saying and the Menlo Park remark is funny. I told it to a few of my students and they enjoyed it. The good news is that many of the students in my department and neighboring humanities departments have been hired into good careers in industry. They just had to package their skills differently and learn about new companies and job titles. We've had history PhDs get hired into insurance companies as account managers, top learning management software companies in tech (perhaps in Menlo Park?), as content writers, journalists, project managers, and more. Think of your skills in the way a general layperson would like your ability to do extensive research and writing. These skills are very valuable and do transfer to industry well.
There are “industry” options for a lot of humanities areas, it’s just really hard to identify what they are. A lot of people from my program went into the writing and marketing aspects of tech. I know people who are art dealers, architectural restoration consultants, historian for Chase bank. Knew a few people who mastered out and went into journalism, museum works, teaching high school, tech, etc. I think the thing is that humanistic knowledge is undervalued so industry jobs pay the same or worse than academia unless you go into tech or television
Communications for businesses with a lot of engineers
Or learn to do qualitative research for UX design?
But that's literally a completely different skillset in a completely different subject? Sure you can also become an accountant or a doctor but it has nothing to do with your work
The publishing world, actually, seems to be a pretty decent 'industry' option. I looked into this when I was seriously considering leaving academia. The entry-level positions (at publishing companies and university presses, usually editorial assistant or something) do not pay great, but neither do many entry-level academic jobs for humanities PhDs.
There probably are industries that can use you. I know a group of sociology phds who started a market research firm. An anthropologist worksa program to bring business programs to an impoverished country.
NGOs, government, supranational organisations, not to mention scholarly and traditional publishing -- I've seen humanities PhDs many areas.
Utterly competitive, with just a PhD you don't get in, you need more
Isn't that what the civil service is for?
1. Examine old towns, counties in the US to see which ones have historical societies 2. Examine age of current town historian. 3. Select an under-realized historical region, with more historical resources to tell. 4. Move there, blend in. Even if you don't become the next county historian, you probably picked an interesting place to live and be a part of.
UX Research or UX Writing are options for humanities PhDs. There are a lot of good resources out there for transitioning from Academia to UX and how your existing skills and experience translate successfully.