/u/kimthevillain

What do you want to be in five years?

What do you want to be in ten years?

Do you have what it takes to be what you want to be in five, ten years, given the realities of the world around you?

Don't mistake possibilities for opportunities.

But first things first. If you haven't yet, you should read through a recent Monday Methods on "So you want to go to grad school for history and the discussion therein.

Second, check out the American Historical Association's job listings. Their essay on what can you do with an ungrad degree in history tries to paint a positive image around the reality: that with an undergrad degree in history, you probably won't be working as a historian.

Third, read through older similar questions, use the search box with a search phrase or another.

Finally, this thread asking "What career(s) did you acquire with your degree is a great read.

Mods, we may need a [meta] tag for this, or put some of the responses above to a FAQ.

Yes, absolutely. I have a BA in History and an MA in Archaeology. There's very little work out there for historians or archaeologists outside of being a career academic, and what does exist pays terribly. Pursue a Nursing degree, and keep your love of history as a hobby.

If I could go back in time and talk Younger Me out of getting a History degree, I would. Going back to school to get an MSc in Data Science is the best decision I've ever made, and I wish I'd made it a lot sooner.

If it helps you make a decision, on the 2016 Forbes list of "The 10 Least Valuable Degrees," History ranked 9th (unemployment rate 10.2%, median starting income $32,000), and Archaeology ranked 1st (unemployment rate 10.5%, median starting income $28,000). If you're in the US, jobs that pay that little also generally don't provide health insurance. That won't seem like a big deal to you right now in High School, but it will definitely be a very big deal to you by the time you're wrapping up that degree.

Conversely, for the same amount of schooling I had, you can get a degree in Nursing Anesthesiology. Hospitals all over the country will be desperate to hire you, and it has a median starting income of $139,000.

Edit: Of course this post is getting downvoted. Even /r/askhistorians isn't safe from the hivemind.

As a related question, and one that might be better for the grad school series that's ongoing as mentioned by /u/onetruepapist, I'd be curious as to how many of our history grads and PhDs actually got their undergraduate degrees in History.

Which leads me to what I'd like to add to the discussion:

As someone considering grad school, who is not a professional historian but who might like to be in the future, my undergraduate degree was in Arabic and Islamic studies, which A: involved an awful lot of history, B: prepared me, linguistically, for more advanced study in the fields of history that interest me, and C: is something I absolutely do not regret. I have a great job in a relevant field, doing exactly what I want to do at this point in my life and that pays well. So no regrets from me.

That was also, importantly, in the British system, so all that I studied was Arabic and Islamic studies, with the result being that in four years I graduated being able to read texts with near fluency (granted, depending on the subject of the text).

In the US system: 1. I would not have been able to develop that level of language skill, and 2. There were probably paths by which I could have studied these topics even as a major without having any real skill in the language.

That would have been a complete waste of time. So in that sense always keep in mind what the limitations are of a "major" in the US system, because they are a significant consideration.

So speaking as a non-historian, I would say it depends on what you want to do. You mentioned in other comments being bi-lingual at a fluent level in Spanish and English and being good at languages. Perhaps, at an undergraduate level, consider what kind of history you're interested in and whether or not a "history" degree, per se is what you want. If you're interested in Medieval Spanish history maybe you'd be better off with a degree in Spanish and a minor in Arabic (or maybe Hebrew if you wanted to work with Ladino). Or something like that.

I would fully agree again with /u/onetruepapist's set of questions:

What do you want to be in five years?

What do you want to be in ten years?

Do you have what it takes to be what you want to be in five, ten years, given the realities of the world around you?

I would then ask something like:

• Does a pure "History" degree prepare me for this best? Or would I better off with a degree in another discipline that nonethless gets me closer to the history I want to be doing? (e.g. languages, economics for economic history, polisci, theology, etc.)
• If I decide that I don't want to do grad school, and therefore that I don't want to be a professional historian has my degree prepared me for the kinds of jobs and professions that I actually want? And yes, with a very small number of exceptions that willingness to pursue a graduate degree in the field is the determinant for being a professional historian. The people who write history who do not have graduate degrees are almost inevitably journalists (e.g. Steve Coll, Lawrence Wright) or political polemicists. If you have an interest in politics or journalism that's fine, but is your degree preparing you for that? Are you engaged in the right extracurriculars? (e.g. student journalism, semesters abroad in politically interesting locations, student politics, internships, etc.) Something to consider.
• If, after all that, you do know that you want to be a professional historian, that you have the interest, that you're doing this degree, I'll be more blunt than /u/onetruepapist when he asked "do you have it what it takes", I'll ask "have you made it into a a top tier university, or have the prospects of being admitted to a top tier university at graduate level, in order to make an actual career out of this?"

My thoughts on that last question were deeply colored by my brief attendance at Boston College (where I spent one year before leaving for greener pastures) when I realized that despite how much BC took pride in its academic selectiveness, virtually all of my professors had Ivy League degrees. Of course I'm being somewhat unfair-- plenty of BC grads are professors too-- but in an elite position like "history professor," pedigree very much matters and its the kind of question you should be blunt about whether or not you can realistically achieve.

I think I might be able to give you some unique insight. I majored in both History and Biology in college and then went to medical school. I'm wrapping up medical school and will hopefully be a doctor in a few months. No regrets.

First of all, realize that you are not making a career decision by choosing a major. Like me, there are quite a few History majors in medical school (I was actually surprised to find out how many of my classmates were history majors. It seems to be the most popular non-science majors amongst my peers). History majors also go on to law school, nursing, pharmacy school, business, and a whole host of career paths. Point being, it's not a pipeline of history major -> job as an academic historian.

As far as the skills gained as a history major, they've been invaluable to me as I go through medical school. The analytical skills, understanding importance of context, synthesizing of multiple sources, assessing reliability of those sources, etc, are all tools I directly use when dealing with patients and formulating diagnoses and plans. I also wouldn't minimize the soft advantages of a history major. I've had more than one evaluation in medical school which has stated "Student demonstrates his background as a history major by sharing interesting relevant historical anecdotes. Very enjoyable to have on our team."

I would also caution you from assuming that history is the easy option. A history major is quite a bit more rigorous than nursing. Nursing is a great profession and requires hard work, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's an easy degree by any means. However, having tutored nursing students when I was in college, I can assure you that any reputable history curriculum will be significantly more demanding.

Right now, I'd say to postpone making your decision about becoming a historian or not. Majoring in history doesn't preclude you from becoming a nurse. I'd strongly recommend a double major if you can. It might be a bit more work but if you enjoy history, it shouldn't be too bad. And at the end of four years if you decide that nursing is the route for you, you will still have gained valuable skills you can apply as a nurse.

I don't regret my history BA or MA at all. I havn't really had time to regret starting a PhD program yet, but I doubt I will.

I think the big difference between the two options you're looking at is that if you pick nursing, you're more or less settling on a career now, at age 18/19. Of course, you can always switch careers later, but you'll have a pretty straightforward track and lots of certainty in your career. My younger sister, for example, did her degree in nursing: she walked straight out of college into a permanent job, makes nearly double what I do and is in a profession which is in demand across the world, giving her a lot of flexibility in how she lives her life. For a lot of people, that sort of certainty in having your life laid out in front of you is comforting.

Me, on the other hand, I've lived in 4 different countries since getting my degree, will probably force to move at least once more in order to secure a good job. Since getting my degree, I have worked as a tour guide, fry cook, catering server, bar-back and business development manager. I turned down graduate fast-track programs in academic administration and in business management in order to take up my current position. I have friends with history degrees who work in marketing, government jobs, diplomatic service, law, journalism, finance, as well as teachers and professional historians. Basically, a history degree opens a lot more doors, but has a lot less certainty. The skills acquired as a historian are very flexible and transferable. I don't know what job I'll be working in 5 years. But whatever it is, I'm going to try to enjoy it. I always had good grades, and I'm pretty confident that I could be a medical doctor, lawyer or financial whizz by now if I'd set my mind to it. But frankly, I'd hate my life having to do those things every day. And with my history degree, I can always become a corporate sell-out when I'm ready to stop having fun.

A final point, about money: statistically, in the UK at any rate, humanities grads' lifetime earnings are, on average, equal to or above STEM and other fields', despite the fact that they're lower in the early years of the career. So the pay-off is there, you just need to wait a little longer to see it.

In the end though, the choice comes down to what your priorities in life are. If you want stability and certainty, nursing is probably a good choice. If you want excitement, the chance to do things you love and jump at opportunities that come your way, even though you don't know where you might end up, then pick history.

You can always be an amateur historian in your spare time (watching docs, reading books, listening to podcasts, visiting new countries and museums, joining historical societies, doing family history, etc.), and a nurse in your professional life, but I don't think it works the other way around! I too love history and studied it in university, but combined it with a teaching degree as a more practical profession. (I actually don't teach as a career now, but that's neither here nor there.) I would recommend applying to Nursing programs and seeing how your first year goes, while also seeing what sort of history-related things you could be engaged in on your new campus and in your new town/city. Perhaps you could even sit in on a history class "for fun" without needing to formally enroll or write exams and papers. History departments often also have guest lecturers who give special talks that are open to all. If you like nursing and end up with a Nursing degree, it will give you the financial flexibility to pursue your passion for history in many ways. If you don't like nursing after a year or two, you can consider switching to a history program. A year (or two) in what may end up being the wrong program for you sounds like a long time right now, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not and the experience will leave you more secure knowing that whatever you do end up choosing was definitely the best choice.

It depends on what you want to do ultimately. Do you want to be a historian? Because that takes many, many years (and dollars) beyond undergrad and even then the prospects can be dim.

Personally, I majored in history, had a blast in college, then found a job in finance. I absolutely don't regret it but I could have made more money studying something else.

My advice would be to major in nursing and take a heavy course load in foreign language/history. This will make you more well rounded and you can always go back to history down the line. Just my advice though.

Absolutely not. I worked for a few years at museums and historic sites and eventually left for a different type of non-profit work. Currently I'm an HR Project Manager for a huge company making pretty good money. Even though I'm not "using" my degree, earning it taught me a lot of skills:

1. I'm a great researcher, a skill that is hard to learn and is incredibly valuable in the real world
2. I'm comfortable writing
3. I'm great at giving presentations (this is a natural talent, but I really honed it in college since presentations were a huge part of my academic career)
4. It taught me to think critically and recognize the link between actions and impacts
5. A broad knowledge of history gives you a much greater understanding of the world in general
6. Currently a trivia badass
7. I really enjoyed college. I enjoyed going to my classes, having discussions with my fellow students, and learning from amazing teachers. I don't think I would have had an experience like that if I had chosen another major.

If I could go back and do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. A classic liberal arts education is getting rare these days. It will serve you well, even if you don't grow up to be a historian.

My advice is to pursue a degree in nursing, devoting any spare credits you might have to the study of a foreign language and leaving the enjoyment of history to your leisure hours. In the short term, this will give you a much better life. In the long term, it will make you a better historian. (My assumption here is that you would like to end up in a situation where you can make your living by doing such things as historical research, historical writing, and, perhaps, some form of teaching.)

History is an old person's game. That is, to be a proper historian, one must both accumulate a lot of knowledge about the past and have a good deal of experience in the real world. Working as a nurse for a decade or two will give you both the time to accumulate that knowledge and gain that real world experience.

An historian needs to know at least one foreign language. This will not only enable you to read sources that would otherwise be inaccessible, but will also give you a degree of sophistication about issues of language and culture. Studying foreign languages will also enhance your ability to communicate in English, both by providing you with models to adapt to your own purposes and by giving you a sense of the shades of meaning associated with a wide variety of words.

Very little that is taught in most university history departments will help you become a first-class historian, and much of what is taught in such places will place obstacles in your path. There are several reasons for this. The first is the fact that very few professors of history are themselves first-class historians. Most, I am sorry to say, are mediocrities who write badly, teach poorly, and know little about matters outside of their own very narrow field of specialization. Moreover, they are, for the most part infected with a dysfunctional world view, one one that, if adopted, will hamper both your personal progress in the world and your ability to do good for others.

All first-class historians are self-taught. Whether or not they were enrolled in courses at a university, they learned their craft by trial-and-error, by study of the writings of persons long dead, and by wandering about in libraries and archives. What is true for knowledge of history also applies to the art of writing history. Moreover, to be a first-class historian, one must be a first-class writer, and the art of writing is also the exclusive preserve of autodidacts.

A first-class historian is well-traveled. Working as a nurse will allow you to do that. First of all, you will have enough money to travel on your own dime. Secondly, you will have opportunities to work in far-flung places. (You may even get a job on a cruise ship!)

A first-class historian is rarely just an historian. Thucydides, Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt were soldiers and statesmen as well as historians. Barbara Tuchman was a journalist and an intelligence officer.

Having a "second-profession" provides an historian with perspective, and so preserves him from the solipsism that afflicts so many academics. At the very least, the historian who has worked in another field understands that there are people in the world who are worried about things other than footnote fights. Better yet, he understands that the majority of people who will benefit from his work are people other than academics.

Good nurses burn out. Thus, there will probably come a time when the thought of spending one more late-night shift walking the halls of a hospital will chill you to the bone. At that point, you will be looking for something else to do. History will be waiting.

Clio bless!