Hey, I'm curious as to how many of you, who got their doctorates in history, followed an unusual path to it - coming from other areas unrelated to history - as opposed to the more traditional path (i.e., history undergrad/master's).
I'm at a point in my academic career (B.A. in psychology, MsC in Neuroscience) where a fully funded PhD in Neuroscience has been pretty much guaranteed to me - but I'm having a few doubts about whether I actually want to be a Neuroscientist. I've come to realize that, more than the science aspect of my chosen topic (drugs and psychopharmacology), I'm more interested in how those have developed and changed society, and how they were treated in the past. I've always loved history (actually thought about doing my undergrad in it, but ended opting for Psychology) and have a pretty good idea of what I'd like to do a thesis on.
So I'm curious as to how viable a change in fields would be, and what would be the outcomes. Of those who took weirder paths to their PhD in history, how many of you ended up staying in academia? And those who didn't stay, what do you do nowadays?
Sorry for any weird confusing language - English isn't even my 3rd language :)
Thanks :)
Have a Masters myself and know lots of history Ph.D's. None are employed in a history field. I usually try to avoid being overly negative to people looking into things like this. But bottom line is even if you went Ivy League and had publications it's an uphill battle.
Don't do it. It's not just hard to make it. You almost certainly won't.
It depends on the country. In the US it's pretty easy to switch fields at your stage, in Europe it would be much much more difficult usually. I don't know about other places.
However: I would absolutely not recommend doing a history PhD if you're looking at it as a path to an academic career. There are only academic positions for a tiny proportion of qualified candidates, and it is absolutely not a meritocracy - who gets a job and who rises up the ladder is almost pure dumb luck. Fighting for one of those positions is brutal psychologically, and odds are that you will almost certainly wash out and have to start your professional life over from scratch. And if you do get a job, being a professor is not as fun as it looks from the outside; there's a lot of admin, teaching is exhausting, and there are a lot of toxic people. If you can see yourself doing something else, do it.
At the risk of echoing other contributors, do not enter the field of history looking for an almost-certain career. The job market isn't great. Some fields are better than others, but overall the chances are slim.
That being said, to get to your question: I have known historians who came into the field of History from nontraditional careers. I've met historians who started with a JD, and others who are scientists in various fields (off the top of my head, biology and geology). These historians have almost always used their prior experience and credentials in pursuit of their research goals within history.
My institution has a History and Philosophy of Science program, which is mostly staffed with scientists.