This is very sad.

##How to Apply to Grad School Cheat Sheet##

1. Do I need a master's before a PhD? No, but you should, financial factors considered.
2. Where should I apply? Where there's a professor you want to work with and where you have a good chance of there still being a history (or allied) department when you finish.
3. How do I find professors I want to work with? Look at recent books and articles in your field related to your research interests and using your preferred methodologies/type of sources. Look up where their authors teach. Cross-list with functional PhD programs.
4. How do I know they want me? Contact potential advisors in the fall--September is good. Ask if they're accepting grad students for the coming year.
5. The department website says 100% of graduating students secure academic jobs! They're lying.
6. What do I need to apply? Application fee, application form, 3 letters of recommendation, a writing sample (hyper-polished paper), a statement of purpose/intent, the GRE, possibly something else interesting like a diversity statement or TOEFL
7. The GRE? Doesn't really matter. Just get the minimum score for the university's sake. Buy a prep book if you need to re-learn high school math. I liked Kaplan's for that.
8. Letters of recommendation? From full professors who know you and your work is best. Don't pick a superstar who doesn't know you; don't pick a grad student instructor who does.
9. Statement of purpose? The core of the application. Why you want to study what you do (you have NOT "always wanted to", unless you want to argue for a Platonic pre-existence of the soul in eternity), a sketched-out research plan in your area of interest that is probably NOT what you will write your dissertation on so don't stress about that part, who is your POI and why, what are other reasons you need THIS program (other profs, special collections, research center), why does this program need YOU.
10. Writing sample? Your absolute best, most-polished work related to your research interests. Probably an edited-down seminar paper or chapter of your MA thesis with some framing added.
11. When do I apply? Check the department website and keep track. Dec. 1, Dec. 15, Jan. 1 are the most common, but there are some weirdos.
12. This is like a Rude Goldberg machine or the game Mousetrap! Make a spreadsheet with each school on the vertical column and the horizontal covering (a) deadline (b) each component of the application (c) INCLUDING submission. Mark off what you've done.
13. What are my chances? Utterly impossible to predict.
14. Any last minute advice? Do not get a PhD in history.

##Expanded Advice, or, This Is AskHistorians And We Have A Reputation To Maintain##

I want a PhD. Do I need a master’s?

De jure, no. I personally would give a resounding yes, but the one caveat is a HUGE one—money. A master’s degree gives you the chance to adjust to the very, very different workload, class style, and lifestyle of grad school. If your field is language- or skill-intensive (paleography, statistics), you have time to develop those skills. Your application to PhD programs will be stronger. Also, PhD admissions are tough. It’s a good idea to apply to at least one MA program as a backup if you’re dead set on grad school. People who come into the history program at my school with a master’s are far less likely to drop out ABD.

If you’re not zeroed in on a fairly narrow area of research, you need an MA first.

Where should I apply?

This isn’t undergrad. For picking a master’s program, there are two basic criteria: (1) what is the best funding deal you can get, and how likely it is that you will get it (2) does the academic/professional outcome of students entering the program match your own goals.

For picking a PhD program, there are three criteria: (1) all of the PhD students must have guaranteed full funding (tuition fellowship and stipend) for at least five years (2) there is an advisor who works in something overlapping your area, and at least one person who could serve as a backup (3) does the actual (as opposed to PR materials) professional outcome of students entering the program match your goals.

In the U.S., do not pay for a humanities PhD. For the obvious reason of the criminal student-loan industry, but also because full funding is a good indicator of the department’s care for its own students and the university’s interest in supporting a PhD program in your field. Make sure the department guarantees full funding for all its students.

You will probably pay for a master’s degree. That can be offset with TA or RA (research assistant) fellowships and occasionally other on-campus jobs. If your interests overlap with religious history, consider religion studies/div school programs with a very strong historical focus—they are more likely to offer full tuition remission or even a stipend.

This department website says 100% of graduating students secure full-time academic jobs!

(1) They’re lying.

(2) They’re not “lying,” but if you look closer it actually says “100% of students who seek it. For a very particular definition of “who seek it.”

How do I find potential advisors?

Look at recently-published books and articles related to your research interest. Google the authors. Find out where they teach. Find out which of those schools have PhD programs.

Sometime in the fall—September is good—contact the potential advisors. In the email, introduce yourself (“my name is P, I’m a student/employee at Q, I’m interested in your PhD program in R”), find some question about the program to ask them, and then ask if they’re accepting grad students to work with for the following year. I was told to set up phone conversations next, but only do this if you can come up something to say.

What do I need to apply?

Generally the application package consists of: (1) the application form (2) GRE (3) writing sample (15-30 page seminar paper or thesis excerpt) (4) statement of intent/purpose (5) letters of recommendation. Some schools might throw in a “diversity statement” or list of primary sources read in original language or other fun wrinkle.

The GRE? But I can’t do math.

Buy yourself a Kaplan test prep book and reteach yourself high school math through Algebra II. It’s a breeze the second time around. (I thought Kaplan was the most helpful for math, Princeton Review for teaching you how to game the writing section).

And don’t worry about it. As long as you hit the bare minimum score for the university (not the department), the GRE basically doesn’t matter for admissions.

Letters of recommendation

The best is tenured professors who know you and know your work. A superstar prof is great, but only if they know you and your work. Tenure-track profs, adjunct profs, and postdocs/grad student TAs are descending levels of acceptable. If you’ve been out of formal study for awhile, a letter from your boss or other person familiar with your work on a professional level is a good idea.

Statement of Purpose a.k.a. Statement of Intent

There is so much bad advice about these floating around. This is NOT a personal essay. This is an assertion of your basic topical interest, maybe a couple sentences about why this interests you that does NOT start with “I have always…” (no, you haven’t), and some comments about why THIS school is right for you and why YOU are right for this school. This should include the prof you want to work with and why, and at least one resource the school/department offers that will aid your research.

Most importantly, the SOP must include a well-written but casual research proposal for your dissertation. This does not need to be and probably will not be your actual dissertation topic. The point of this is to show (1) sustained interest and experience in a target subject area (2) the ability to think along the lines of a topic that will make a good historical research project.

Writing Sample

Edit the living daylights out of a seminar paper or edit the living nightlights out of a chapter of your honors/master’s thesis. If you’re applying for a non-Anglophone historical topic, make absolutely sure you have original language in at least your footnotes, and if you can work in some “translation is my own” bit that’s excellent.

Ideally, the writing sample will be in your rough field of interest (medieval culture, early modern politics, etc).

When should I apply?

Schools have different deadlines—Dec. 1, Dec. 15, Jan. 1, Jan. 15 are frequently seen. Keep straight which school is which date.

What else might pop up?

Interviews. On campus or Skype. Even if your school has never held interviews for finalists in the past, they might decide to start the year you apply with no warning whatsover.

If you’re a finalist in an interview process: As nervous/intimidated as you might be, this is a two-way street. It’s as much for you to find out if the school is right for you, as for the school to judge whether you are right for them.

What are my chances?

Genuinely impossible to predict. You could be a medievalist applying a year the admissions committee decides to accept only ancient historians. You could be interested in 19th century medicine the year before a professor is planning to teach a seminar class on Victorian hospitals and needs enough interested students for the class to go ahead. Your potential advisor could be on the admissions committee. They could bargain away their allotment of grad students for this year’s cohort to another prof in exchange for two grad students the following year.

All you can do is put forth the best application you can to programs where you are a great fit in terms of research interest and resources available.

Any last minute advice?

Do not get a PhD in history.

A history PhD will not make you more attractive for other jobs. You will have amazing soft skills, but companies want hard ones. More than that, they want direct experience, which you will not have. A PhD might set you back as "overqualified,"

This is some serious truth.

I spent over a year after my PhD applying for normal person jobs. I'm currently doing a job that's supposed to be filled by someone with an undergraduate degree. I like my job fine, but I'm basically where my career would have been 6 years ago if I hadn't done my PhD.

I recently applied for a mid-level governmental research position at my office, over 70 people applied and nearly all of them had PhDs. At best my having a PhD puts me equal to the hundreds of other people out there looking for jobs with them, but by and large I've never felt it to be a real benefit to my in convincing people to hire me.

I will say that I feel like I have a lot of skills necessary to do a lot of jobs from my time as a postgraduate student, but that's not obvious to the people hiring.

The one clear benefit is that the Thesis Defence being basically a job interview dialled up to 11 meant that I'm not nearly as scared of job interviews as I once was. I probably could have achieved that without 5 years of study, though...

Hi, I'm a 19 year old about to start my first year of undergrad. I'm majoring in history and I have since the age of 12 known that I want to teach history. At the moment I am wishing to someday pursue a master's, then later a PhD, and hopefully secure a position teaching some branch of history at the college level. Obviously, your post has spoken to me, and quite honestly scares the hell out of me. The last thing I want to end up doing is waste thousands of dollars and several years of my life pursuing a job position that does not exist. History is my passion, and if I'm to, "never work a day in my life" by doing what I love, what alternatives do I have? Teaching high school possibly? Or is that just as bad?

I realized this like....16 years ago when I was in the midst of undergrad. Really wanted to get a PhD, looked into it, and ultimately read a lot of horror stories along the lines of "the first 5 years after you get your PhD you should consider getting a job interview as significant as getting a job;" and "every year there are twice the number of PhD's who graduate as there are open faculty positions at 4 year colleges." Looks like by those AHA statistics it's actually gotten WORSE. And I know folks who have been adjunct professors in humanities who subsisted on below-poverty wages for far too long and have ultimately pulled the plug and ended up in corporate America but without all the years of experience that companies like, so making more entry-level type wages.

Broke my history-leaving heart.

I had this exact experience in pure mathematics. Through the course of my PhD, none of my professors discussed the academic job market at all.
Then when I finished, there was nothing at all. 500 applications for every single tenure track job. There just weren’t any jobs. It was crushing.

PhD in philosophy here ... one other thing to note is that even if you get that tenure-track job at a small liberal arts college, something like a third of such colleges are going to shut down in the next couple decades, meaning that tenure is now meaningless.

Anyway I agree with your points (stats are similar for foreign languages, English, even philosophy ...), but if someone is getting a history PhD at Yale I think they'll be fine. Also my PhD helped me to land a lucrative research job doing consulting and grant writing for higher education, it's not as if you're automatically 'overqualified' for every position.

My partner has a PhD from a top 5 program and has spent the last three years in the academic job market. Each year there were 10-15 jobs (that didn't have inhumane conditions) he could apply for, including in the international market. He's had two excellent interviews, and neither has led to a job offer. The application process is hell, and you get to do it all over again even if you get a postdoc. You're lucky if you get a job offer with terrible working conditions at Southwest Christian Community College of Missouri. Most of his friends have had similar experiences.

I...I hate this, but advice like your's did eventually turn me away. The cost without scholarships or bursaries are just immense, the competition for scholarships and grants in the UK is incredible, and museum work requires experience in...well, museum work. After being discouraged by a bad run-in with a professor, I'm going back to work. I might one day get a History PhD, but not until the job market for it dramatically ticks up. I'd love to teach history. I genuinely would. But...I also want to own a home and travel the world, two big enough tasks as is.

A good post for putting your finger on the pulse of what many graduates have been saying.

This is the post is the exact same reasoning I had for stopping at a Masters. My wife and I are 31. We want to have kids and another 4 years of school plus god knows how long of a job search just made it a complete non-starter.

Disclaimer: I am a history professor with a tenure-track position at a small liberal arts school that does not have graduate studies in the discipline. I received my PhD in 2016 from a non-top 10 university. I am well aware of how lucky I am and how my experience is not the norm.

Just here to iterate how accurate OP is. I'm one of the exceptions: I'm gainfully employed within the discipline without any student loan debt. A few takeaways from the experience of getting a PhD and becoming a Professor:

1. **There is so much luck involved it's not even funny.**
   My publishing record is middling at best. My research, although interesting, is not particularly novel or noteworthy. My major competencies are as a lecturer and teacher. By any possible metric, there are MUCH more qualified historians out there, yet I somehow landed the tenure-track job. I assure you it was not of my own doing, but rather sheer happenstance. I applied to over 50 jobs, got two in-person interviews, and one offer. I have no idea why the jobs that rejected did so, or why the jobs that offered me an interview did.
2. The mental health issues of grad school are real. I had my first panic attack while studying for my general exams. I had to go on anti-depressants for about a year. It got so bad, there was about a one month period where I was too scared to drive or even leave my bedroom. In time, I was able to work through it and get stronger, but the stress of grad school, particularly in the humanities, is a very real concern. You're putting yourself through immense amounts of mental strain while thinking all the while "Why the hell am I doing this? I probably won't be able to get a job? Does anyone outside of my professors know or even care about the internal politics of anti-Jacksonian Whigs?!" (Spoiler Alert: No). Although I never took to alcohol, I was only one of two within my entire department who did not drink.
3. It's so isolating This was the one thing about MA/PhD that no one really prepared me for. I had a very jovial experience as a history major in undergrad. Lots of shenanigans with Phi Alpha Theta, plenty of esprit de corps with the other history majors, globs of meaningless debates on whether the Spartans could beat the Carthaginians on an even field, etc. I thought that grad school would be the same. It wasn't. Sure, there were moments: seminar classes, going to the college hangout bar & grill for burgers afterwards, but that's only about 5 hours out of the week. The rest of the time you're pretty much on your own. Your program might vary, but most of my grad school days were marked by loneliness.
4. Your friends will start lapping you This couples with #3, your friends outside of academia will begin hitting major life milestones: getting married, having kids, buying houses, etc. Meanwhile, you're still spending your Friday nights with Foucault. If you didn't have FOMO before, you'll certainly have it now, and it will be a huge part of your mental breakdown. Thankfully, life after grad school is MUCH better. I was able to meet my wife, get a house, and get into a much better headspace after my general exams.
5. Finances are never great Whenever I have a student tell me that they want to get a PhD in history, the first question I always ask is "Are you independently wealthy or have outside funding?" I hate to ask it. History should not just be a "gentleman's pursuit", but I can't in good conscience recommend a lower-income student accruing 5 or even 6 figures worth of debt. Even if you're one of the lucky ones, the amount you'll be paid is far below similar levels of education in other disciplines. I was lucky enough to not have a single student loan in my 12-years of higher education (4 years undergrad, 2 years Masters, 6 years PhD) and I still have trouble making ends meet sometimes. I can only imagine how much harder it would be if I had Sallie Mae breathing down my neck.

Still, in spite of it all, I genuinely love my job. But I really wish I could have done something else sometimes. Like, if there was any possible way my mind could have accepted an alternative to so many years of grad school, I would have taken it. Still, I know my employment makes me a unicorn in its rarity, not an expectation.

As someone who isn't involved at all with history academia, this paints a rather bleak picture of the future of the field. What would have to change to turn it around? Is there anything that can be done, or is this a simple case of too much supply, not enough demand? I'd be curious to hear your (or others) thoughts on the future of the field, though that may be better suited to be the subject of a future post.

I was accepted to-- and ultimately declined-- two different PhD programs in Renaissance Studies. After getting two masters degrees in Shakespeare and looking for academic work for a year and a half with not even a single second-contact email, I gave up, and now I run a Renaissance Festival. I still apply for the occasional conference/publication, but I quickly realized that I could easily make a living doing something I love, or I could spend the next five to seven years in poverty waiting to get hired for adjunct work. It's not worth it.

Makes me wish I was good at something else

Absolutely, brutally honest and truthful. Well done. I can personally attest to everything you have outlined above.

1. I accepted a position in a MA/PhD progra in California and though I was assured by stipend would cover "all expenses" it barely covered rent. With a child and spouse, I worked full-time jobs (off the books) so I would be able to put food on the table and not lose my scholarships. My scholarship dried up in the middle of my 3rd year (2008), so I left with an MA and went back to the Midwest.

2. During the 2nd year, I was taking two language classes, four History classes, and worked as a "Grader" for $15/per student graded because the TA jobs were snapped up faster than a chicken at an aligator ranch by ABDs and Post-Docs. I also abstracted for a certain database that is used by Historians. I struggled with depression and suicidal ideation throughout the 2nd and into 3rd year. A colleague of mine committed suicide while another had a nervous breakdown. A third persisted because his parents paid for his apartment and Mercedes. A fourth did eventually land a job at a (quite literally) back-woods university, and she eventually got tenure. Out of the eight or so friends I had in my class, she's the only one working in her field still today.

3. I applied for a lot of research, museum, fellowship, thinktank, etc. jobs only to be drowned in a sea of competitors who had much, much more qualifications than I. Eventually, I was lucky enough to land a job as an adjunct in 2009, and eventually grow it to full time (and even overtime; 5 - 6 classes a term, advising students, leading study abroads, etc.). All of that collapsed in 2016 as the education paradigms changed; History was no longer required part of any degree; budgets were cut 10%, then by 35% which slashed out department's adjunct numbers by 95%; retiring professors' positions were just eliminated rather than replaced; and at the same time tenured professors dug deeper in and refused to retire. In 2016 I went from 5 - 6 classes a term to 2 classes a term, then my contract was allowed to lapse in 2017.

It is important to let others know how incredibly tough it is for historians to find jobs, and the immense cost of acquiring a PhD may not be worth the time and energy. Though, personally, I believe that the US is in desperate need of well-educated, liberal arts-trained citizenry who can sift fact from fantasy, I also recognize that this is not reality; there is a lot - A LOT - more pressure for skilled technologists (nurses, human resoruces, "infomatics", and so on) and nearly no support for the Humanities. Indeed, the Lt. Governor of Kentucky Jeanen Hampton summed up current state governmental attitudes towards History (and related fields) succinctly: "Do not sudy History unless you have a job lined up." And ended with saying that higher education is a privilege, not "a right."

So if I want a career in history, what do I do if not go for a PhD? Teach high school? Work at a museum? I’m about to be a freshman and now I’m scared.

As another PhD student in medieval history in the States, I have some points to make:

1. The OP vastly overestimates the obstacles to getting a job outside of academia after obtaining a PhD, frankly. The overall unemployment rate for history PhDs in the States in negligible. (See the link at the bottom of my comment.)
2. There are no TT jobs, except for the grads of a handful of universities. It's not fair, but it's true. Apply to those schools and understand that if you get into one of them, and have any hope of becoming a professor, you need to go there. (For the names of these schools, again, see the link below.)

Generally, as long as you begin your PhD fully aware that you may not get an academic job, which most of my cohort did, and plan accordingly/still want to do it, it will likely be worth it. Just don't lie to yourself about your expectations or motivations--and promise yourself you'll quit the moment you're no longer getting enough out of academia to justify staying in, be that during your doctorate or after graduating. Staying in academia for no reason other than that you've already spent X amount of time trying to make it is a much worse decision than going for it in the first place.

(By the way, the OP seems to frame dropping out as some sort of failure, which it is not. If it takes you a couple of years to realise academia is not for you, or that you'd enjoy something else more, or that you need financial security more than you need your dissertation, that's perfectly okay. I held a job in consulting after college that I enjoyed far less than grad school and quit after a year. No one has ever tried to tell me I made a mistake taking it in the first place or forwarded me any emotional essays about quitting data science. The decision to attend grad school is regarded with far more scrutiny and disrespect, mainly by academics, than it warrants. It's just a job.)

Also, while loneliness, depression and other mental health issues are prevalent among grad students, I'm pretty taken aback by the suggestion anyone who claims not to have such issues is a liar. Like, maybe let people decide for themselves whether they're struggling and respect their responses...? Just like we should let them decide for themselves if they should get a PhD and respect their decision, by the way.

Overall, I find this type of sermonising pretty unnecessary. Give prospective applicants the facts and let them decide for themselves. My professors in undergrad did warn me about my odds of success and I'm very grateful to them, but they never said anything as presumptuous as DON'T DO IT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE THE EXCEPTION, LISTEN TO ME.

And in the spirit of giving you the facts, this is a very comprehensive interactive employment database compiled by the AHA that you should all check out:

Where Historians Work: An Interactive Database of History PhD Career Outcomes

Edit: Just to clarify, despite my minor criticisms, the OP contains a lot of vital information and is a great boon for prospective applicants.

This advice is roughly identical to the advice given by 2 of my professors when I was still in college and was the biggest factor in my decision not to go on to grad school.

I'm doing fairly well for myself now, working for a small time historical site without student loan debt. I still consider grad school, but more likely for Library/Museum Sciences rather than history. I'd still prefer to have more experience in those fields before pursuing it.

You are correct, OP.

I returned to the United States after living abroad for several years in 2009 with the intent of switching careers and possibly getting into academia. I got into a terminal master's program in cultural history and LOVED the program. I mean, I loved it more than I ever loved any undergrad courses (film history courses aside).

But yeah, two years in, after wrapping up my masters thesis and seeing 1.) How few jobs there were, 2.) how MOST people my age were adjuncts, getting shit money while living for years in hopes of getting a full tenure track and 3.) how they worked like DOGS doing quality research all while still earning shit money ....

When the time came to either apply for a PhD program or do something else, I gladly went back to my existing career.

This absolutely sucks NOT because there should be more history professors but mostly because history is a really fun subject and it doesn't become fun unless you bear down on a really specific area and study the fuck out of it and THAT is all but impossible unless you get a free ride or have a bunch of money you're fine parting ways with.

I recently dropped out of a PhD program in Classics from a top school in America. This is good advice. Don't get a humanities PhD. Not only are there no jobs, but grad school is nothing like undergrad. Not only is the work load completely unreasonable, but rather than being focused on your growth like undergrad, the program is just about jumping through hoops and working for your faculty. You will work for faculty who expect you to grade 100 exams during YOUR exam week and then can't be bothered to answer a time sensitive email because they're "busy."

It's awful, don't do it. Just read Greek or whatever on your own, you'll enjoy it more and get a living wage.

I suppose it should be asked : What can be done to reverse this trend for the future?

As hard as it is to admit, this is true. Not only in the US, but in Europe as well. There is just not enough general interest in the matter. I believe this is mostly due to how are society is shaped today: everything is seen under an utilitarian point of view, completely grounded in the present or the future, not the past. This has led to a sharp decline of interest in humanities and arts, and it has raised interest - and thus funding - in the STEM field. That's just the reality of things, and there's little one can do to change it.

Personally, the only solution I have found to such a problem is to take one's interest in history, and use it in another field. What is the aspect of history that interests you the most? How those who came before us could build wonders that still last after two thousand years? Study History of Architecture. Are you interested in the deep diplomatic webs that characterized Late Medieval and Modern History? You may find a degree in International Relations as interesting. History, in my opinion, triumphs over all other academic subjects for one reason: it analyzes and examines every single aspect of life as it was lived by who came beforw us. And therefore, it can be applied in every single other subject we are interested in.

Personally, I've always been fascinated by how human civilization has grown and prospered. This is why I am currently studying Economics and I'd like to specialize in Economic History and Development, with Geopolitics on the side, if possible. I have been recently told by my Economic History professor that my choice of studies is not that different from a career suicide if I intend to stick to an academic path (I live in Italy and our education and research system is in dire need of more funding, which does not seem to be anywhere near). But through a lot of research, I've found that academic life is hardly the only path open to me, as I could pursue a job in international organizations and political structures, such as the UN or the EU.

TL;DR: OP is right IMHO and a PhD in History will likely lead you nowhere, no only in the US, but also in Europe. Open your possibilities and try to apply history to other subjects you are interested, there are plenty out there.

When I was about to start college, my wise old neighbor said something to me that still sticks in my head forty years later... "You know what you can do with a degree in Medieval History? You can teach some other schmuck Medieval History".

Back in the 1990's I was convinced by many a adviser and people in the know that the collapsing Soviet Bloc was the happening place to be. So a Sovietologist I became. Three years later, MA in hand I was moving on to a PhD when suddenly, I discovered there were no jobs. See, people by that point had figured out the Russian (and by extension EE) had nothing the West really wanted to buy, and the Russians had really no money to buy anything from the West, and don't even get me started on the Wild Wild West Russia was back in those days in terms of trying to do business in. And languages! "Learn Russian" they said! "Everyone speaks it in the former Soviet Bloc!" Well, either they were lying or suddenly after getting out from under the Soviet yoke everyone who spoke it refused to do so and pretended not to understand it. So, like any good liberal arts refugee with an MA and PhD credits, who is bad at math and queasy at the sight of blood, I went to law school.

This is both life-affirming and incredibly soul-crushing.

I'm getting my PhD in History; I'm in the middle of writing my dissertation. In retrospect, I absolutely would not have gotten my PhD for the exact reasons described above. I suffer from anxiety, depression, and I drink way more now than I ever did as an undergraduate in my peak partying years. There are few jobs, everything feels futile. I'd quit now but I am too far now to quit. So this is more of a personal thing than anything that'll catapault me into the academy.

There are few jobs. I am going to whore out my intellectual soul to the highest bidder (I am literally going to work wherever pays me the most) after I finish to help pay down student loan debt. The rising cost of inflation and continuing budget constrictions mean that if you're going to get a PhD now, even if they fully fund you, the accompanying salary will not be enough for cost of living expenses, especially if you live in a bigger city.

It's not worth it. I have a feeling my life would be much better in numerous ways if I did not pursue a PhD or quit after a year of coursework.

This is the most depressing thing I've read today.

AH question: Has everything always sucked like this?

As someone who is just finishing their history undergrad and has dual citizenship with an EU country, I'd like to know what the situation is like over there. Someone already described Ireland, but what about the other countries?

Fuck man, what do I do now? What else can I do? That’s all I’ve ever wanted.

Sooo. I got a PhD in History (History of the Soviet Union and Russia, also a bit of history of other european states)... And now at age 36 i do have a job in the bureauracy and earn more money than a university teacher or professor (I am from Germany and our professors are paid compareably well).

Don't worry, you have skills that are needed in a lot of places. You just don't know it yet.

There are very good jobs for historians, they are just not at the universities.

edit: Learn as many languages as possible.

My girlfriend works in the PostDoctoral office for an Ivy League College. The amount of suicides is fucking heartbreaking. These are people who spent everything they could to attain a dream, only to realize that they effectively put themselves into insurmountable debt with no real job prospects. Her office had to fight tooth and nail to finally attain a healthcare plan for them last year. These are doctors, many who spend years working in university labs for a fifth of what they should be making, just to keep up with interest payments.

Attorney here: Want to know how many adjuncts I’ve represented for Chapter 7 bankruptcy? Lots. They work hard, running around to different campuses to teach different courses, their students love them but they don’t get paid much and they have no benefits. Please, just don’t. For that matter, research any advanced degree you are thinking of obtaining as to actual jobs, actual pay and never, ever believe the university offering the degree. I don’t want to represent you some day. Can we talk about something else? Like maybe a nice will?

People in academia drink more than skydivers.

I guess you haven't skydived? Skydiving doesn't lead people to drink. It's not like skydivers are constantly terrified and need to take the edge off or something. If skydivers drink more than others it's probably correlation not causation.

Wish I had something positive to add, but my husband’s history PhD basically qualified him to marry me and let me support us both. He’s a very clever househusband, though!

This overstates things a bit-- there are jobs, just not a lot of them. I have personally chaired three tenure-track History searches in the last five years and have served as an internal/external member on two other committees in that time period. All those positions were filled with newly-minted Ph.D.s and all are doing fine in their tenure-track roles.

That said, it's important to recognize that almost everything else in this essay is correct. These searches I've been involved with have almost exclusively been in US or European history, and in the modern era-- faculty are retiring and lines are not being filled in other fields. Undergraduate enrollments in history have fallen dramatically almost everywhere, and fields like Medieval are now seen as a luxury many schools cannot afford.

Anyone hoping to have a shot at a tenure-track career in History in the traditional sense should read this carefully and weigh their options. One caveat I share with my students is this: do not get an unfunded Ph.D. in History (or any humanities field). But if you can land full funding at a top-tier school, the opportunity cost of spending 6-10 years on the degree may be something you consider worthwhile. But don't go in thinking that's going to lead to a traditional academic career, because the odds are that it will not, no matter how good you and your program are.

I’m currently a graduate student. When I was an undergraduate, I was told by my professor in Near Eastern Studies that I would never get a job, so I shouldn’t major in the field. This was an Ivy, by the way. So, even though I’d picked my undergraduate Uni based on its near eastern studies department, I took the advice and got a degree in computer science.

I told myself when I graduated that if I still wanted to do Near Eastern Studies in ten years that I’d go back. I got work as an engineer in Silicon Valley. I did that for ten years. It was a mixed bag. There were some great moments, but a lot of frustrating late night sessions with the boss staring over your shoulder demanding to know when the code was going to work. I read a lot about Near Eastern Studies in my spare time. After ten years, I decided I’d had enough. I went back for a PhD and have loved almost every minute of it. I don’t miss Silicon Valley at all.

The thing is, I’m not dependent on the grad program financially and I have a fallback plan. It alleviates a lot of stress. Having had a career, I also know what’s behind door B, so I don’t have any doubts about what my life could have been if I had chosen otherwise. The happiest academics I know are the ones who don’t have to do it for the money, and who chose to go back later in life. Part of the solution, then, is paying professors a decent wage.

Also, I think undergrads should not go straight from undergrad to grad school. When I graduated, I had a lot of learning left to do about how to get along with people and how to deal with authority figures. I don’t think undergraduate university really prepares you for how to work in a strictly hierarchical system. I think my experience in the corporate world has made some things a lot easier in academia.

I am speaking from my own point of view—I am very privileged to have had the options that I have. I also don’t have a job yet. But I know I’ll probably be able to land on my feet even if I don’t end up in academia.

This is the sad truth. I am currently ABD and trying to get a job anywhere while I write. Jobs I might have gotten an interview at before seem to think I'm over qualified. Anything in the humanities basically won't speak to you without a PhD and 2-5 years of experience. The rest of the world does not care about your advanced degrees. In many cases they are an albatross around your neck.

In the end the PhD job market comes down to luck. For example: My adviser got passed over by community colleges and lower tier universities for almost two years before getting a job at a tier 1 school which she thought was way over her head. On the other hand, a student of hers got a tenure track job at UCLA on their first interview without a finished dissertation. If you try to make sense of it you will go insane. There is nothing you can do to control it, so if you want to enter the professor job circus you need to have zen like patience and acceptance because you have no say over what happens.

I feel the worst about adding this last part. If you are in any way financially disadvantaged do not try to enter the PhD world. As much as it desperately needs increased diversity, if you cannot support yourself for years on part time work and volunteering you will never get a full time job. This is doubly true in public history/museums where there are no jobs but every position requires 2+ years of experience. You either volunteer for years or do not get a job, end of story.

I just finished my master's degree in history (I was a TA, got a bunch of scholarships, internships, wrote a thesis that was well received, etc) after doing my undergrad in history at the same school, and I've spent six months applying for jobs with no luck.

Don't be like me!

This made me quite sad, but is a confirmation of what I feared.

Of course, the question is: if good people don't apply to be grad students, who will? How will the discipline persist and continue if the only people who go into it are a) fools, b) unaware or unappreciative of the market issues, c) independently wealthy?

Is the assumption, then, that category "b" above will probably supply enough good people to make a discipline work? Or that if there is a sudden decrease in volume or quality of students that the university administrations will change their priorities? Or is it just about being self-interested for those applying?

I ask as someone who doesn't train grad students (phew!) but when I am asked about these things I generally say: 1) it's a bad idea career-wise, 2) if you absolutely have to do it, find strategies that will maximize your career placement later, and 3) aim for the highest-prestige degree-granting institution you can get, because that does matter both inside and outside of academia. I pulled off 2 and 3 to good effect, being part of category "b" (also, I started my degree in 2004, which was a different world, as the Graph of Doom makes clear).

But even then, I wonder what will happen if people actually take jeremiads like this and my own seriously. What happens when a society sends its best and brightest into fields like quantitative finance, which will make corporations money but generate very little deep knowledge? (I have been conducting an oral history with an elderly physicist friend of mine, who has been around awhile. In the 1950s, he observed, the best students became physicists. By the 1970s, they became molecular biologists. Today they go into quantitative finance, "and that gives me indigestion," he added.)

I don't have the answers here. (I do my best to contribute for the positive, by generating new jobs without generating new students, for whatever that is worth...)

So all of this is true, sadly. I'm a PhD student currently on leave at the top university for my historical field in the US, and while most of us manage to find jobs (a rarity), the jobs are nowhere near the quality they once were. If you want to have a chance (like I do, kind of), I highly recommend the following plan:

1. Get into the top college that you can out of high school. If you were bad at math or science in high school, and that kept you out of a top school, find something else to do. Schools have the luxury of finding people that both have firm groundings in math and science and in history. If you can't do math, don't bother.
2. Take as many history classes as you can in college, and do nearly perfectly in all of them. This doesn't mean getting good grades, though it does imply that. But rather, your professors should look at you as someone capable of doing original research and thinking of original ideas. Go to office hours, conferences, meetings, anything you can get into.
3. Do original research during college. PhD programs want people who know how to work with primary sources. You have to get funding to go to archives and do research. If your school doesn't have funding, find it from somewhere else. If your school doesn't require you to do research to get your degree, find one that does.
4. Apply only to the top several graduate schools in your field. Unfortunately, most lower level PhD programs have terrible placement of their graduates. Most of what was said above is true about them. For most prestige historical fields (European, American, East Asian, etc.) the top 12 or so history departments will dominate the job market. If you don't get into one of them, either don't go, or go into a field that might have a better specialization (ie, working on, say, Latino history at a school in Texas or something).
5. Prepare for the long haul. Good students get rejected. My program rejected me twice before accepting me. Once I got in, I was told that they had 2 spots every year for about 400 applicants. Less than 1% acceptance. You might have to buy a lot of tickets. Get a free masters degree if you can. If you can't, don't pay for one.

Even doing all these, you're still not likely to get to research what you want or teach where you want to. It's a terrible field that everyone is interested in but no one actually wants to invest in. Still, I wouldn't do anything else.

People in academia drink more than skydivers.

I can throw my anecdata into the ring on this point. I got my MA in History and my time in grad school was as close to my having a legitimate drinking problem as I've ever been. In fact, I probably should have been talking to a therapist to deal with it. I'm talking 'drinking bottles of whiskey alone on a Tuesday night and waking up on the living room floor' drinking, not 'let's go out and socialize' drinking.

I did get my Master's degree, but chose not to pursue a PhD. I haven't ever and probably won't ever utilize that MA for its intended purpose. I now work in a completely unrelated field where I taught myself everything I needed to know for free online. I got all of that for a mere $50,000 USD!

I am a professor and went to an elite program. It makes me sad to say it, but this post is pretty much spot-on. I am extremely lucky to have a job (it's basically a lottery), and I have a very good one, but it's still far from ideal.

Also I was scrolling through this while in bed and didn't see any input from current professors, so if you have any questions AMA. I can also message the mods if they want verification. I'm actually teaching in a couple hours, so I might be out for a bit, but will respond as I can.

EDIT: my job market experience is pretty recent. I received my PhD ~5 years ago.

History PhD here. I love teaching and decided to get my secondary ed teaching certifications while I was working on my dissertation. Best decision ever. Though, entering into the secondary ed teaching market for history/social studies is equally as daunting. For example, there were 400 applicants for my position! You may be wondering: doesn't PhD scream "over qualified"? Perhaps but the way that I played it off during the interview was that I am well versed in HOW historians actually do research and use literacy skills which can be directly translated into a high school classroom (DBQs, FRQs) and, thus, give students increased chances to score higher on AP's as well as be prepared for college--which it has. But secondary ed isn't about teaching what you like--you have to become a generalist. You may even have to teach subjects that you haven't really thought about since undergrad. Gasp! But it's a paycheck with benefits. Additionally, there's a shit ton of organizations that like to throw money at teachers and fully-fund (e.g., travel, housing, food) summer 'research' seminars so you can always get your PhD history nerd on during the summer.

This was hard to read but I read it. I am in undergrad for a bachelors degree in medieval history. Once I have my bachelors degree I’d like to get my masters in archaeology. I’d like to do archaeology but to be a teacher in a high school and community college down the line is my big dream. Am I really fucking myself with this plan? Is it a bad idea? Maybe I have been naive? I’m not going to give my life story but I am one of you who holds history to the highest regard in my life. I’ve had little guidance along the way. Please and thank you in advance to any replies.

I realized this when I got my bachelor's in medieval studies and I hoped for a job somewhere in the history field.

I found a small historic society that needed someone with events staffing(which I did), security(which I did) and general handyman(which I could learn)... They preferred someone with a master's.. all for 12$/hr.

They got someone with a master's.

I started with my state's civil service making 17$/he with great benefits.

I have moved up and am comfortable, working in policy.

Reading and analysising legal code and making it English is actually pretty similar to what I did in college and I am good at it.

But history... I cant go and do that.

Yup. My Biology teach in HS went to school for History first. His favorite subject is History.

He told me never to do it. Because there is no work. So he went back to school to get his Master's in Bio and now he's making $110K a year in a nice school district in NY.

It's a damn shame but I've been saying it for 10 years. History is dying (in the US) because nobody cares anymore. And we'll be dumber for it...doomed to repeat past mistakes.

This is the truth, and it’s very disappointing. I got my undergrad in history with the hope of getting a PhD in history. My advisor, a very gentle, kind old man retiring next year pleaded with me to do something else. I’m going to law school in 2019, which is how I can fund my history collection and hobby. To anybody who is an underclassmen or a high school student, listen to OP. As much as it pains me to hear.

As someone with a History bachelors that was looking at applying for grad school for next fall, this post is terrifying but also seems very helpful. I was however looking at doing a Master’s in library science, does anybody have any insight into how that pans out? Any thoughts are appreciated!

I am sad because capitalism does not value historians, yet knowledge of history is necessary for a great society. What do we need to do to change the system to value history? Do we need government programs to fund historical research? Or are there other opportunities we are not thinking about?

I don't know if this has been mentioned but there are ways to turn your humanities phd into an advantage. The one I know about is kind of new and the only reason I know about it is that I'm a computer scientist and I read a lot of industry publications.

For people who already have a phd in history and are struggling or people who are in the middle of their phd studies you might be able to turn your phd in history into an advantage. It may even get you into jobs I don't have a shot at because I don't have a doctorate degree. These are really good jobs that pay well and the job outlook is really good.

A phd no matter the subject teaches things that are transferable to several different fields, but specifically I'm thinking of a relatively new sector in computer science. In data science, even if your phd is in a completely unrelated field in the humanities it will still be an advantage because it's the research skills and mindset that the phd teaches that are highly valued https://towardsdatascience.com/humanities-graduates-should-consider-data-science-d9fc78735b0c.

Note to compete for data science jobs you will need to learn some more advanced math including advanced statistics and differential equations. You will also need to learn programming languages like python and R. There's quite a bit of information online about exactly what you need to learn to become a data scientist as well as several MOOC courses that can help with picking up the skills.

There are also some boot camps for data science specifically for people with phd's that are free and help you learn the skills you need to transition into this kind of work. They then set you up with interviews with a lot of different companies in the area where the boot camp operates. Although, these can be relatively competitive.

I know of quite a few people of disparate backgrounds including one whose phd is in psychology that are successful data scientists.

I have a MA in history and just applied to an advising position paying 35k/yr. I would be advising 50 “at risk” students and teaching 2 seconds of a “welcome to college” class. I didn’t even make it to second round interviews because there were SO MANY PhD applicants. This is a non-tenure track position, I know 2 of those that got the job have graduated from the university’s history department with a PhD in the past 2 years.

You should really consider the history of specifically discouraging women from going into academic fields and decide if you want to leave that part of the post unmodified.

What fields would you encourage women to go into where they would be free of the possibilty of sexual harrasment?

It's been terrible for humanities for a while. Got my MA in English Lit at a state school (so low brow!) and went straight into the school's PhD program (as many do). This was in the mid-late 90s. I bailed once I was ABD, but none of my friends who stuck around and finished are professors today, as we all wanted to be. I eventually landed in DC, where graduate degrees are meaningful to many in the government and non-profit worlds - so that's something for people to consider. I've since relocated (I never really liked DC), but I built a pretty solid resume at nonprofits in the DC area over several years, and I think my education did give me a boost among DC nonprofits. Anyway, best of luck to everyone in this position - I feel your pain.

Was the sharp fall in 2008-2009 from that graph caused by the US recession? What other factors might have contributed to this fall, if any? What other fields experienced something similar? I'm not from the US and I've never lived there so this is not a case of someone living inside a shoebox all this time.

What are the options for monetising history content outside of academia? I say this as someone considering a phd as a mature student who has the financial security to treat it all as a hobby.

Books? Website content? Youtube channel etc. I know it wont be particularly "respected" but i quite like the idea of turning quality history into digestible content for casual consumption. Could it subsidise more vigorous work.

Is half the problem expecting there to be well paid academic work in history? In a field that has such intangible return on investment. Is it possible to combine historical work with other work? I know that this might sound defeatist but maybe its the only way. Moonlighting, consulting for anything that pays the bills that enables further academic work.

I always wanted to be an academic but knew it would never pay or be realistic. But having an ongoing career provides so much more flexibility if (and it is a big if) you can swing the time and flexibility to do both. Spending close to 20 years learning marketable skills and then returning to study and juggling both might not fit everyone, but it is an option for a young person to consider instead of the straight academic path.

I’m about to start my first term of getting a bachelors in history in Sweden, and this post sort of acknowledged something I’ve been suspecting, which is a bit worrying. Anyone know more about the situation in Sweden?

Thank you so much for writing this out for us all, it is indeed a valuable insight into the field. What would you say to someone entering an MA program, specifically Public History?

This was tough for me to read because I know how absolutely in love with history /u/sunagainstgold is. I also know, at the end of all of it, that I can't really disagree with any of it.

I don't post on AH as much as I did a few years ago and part of the reason isn't that I'm working outside of academia myself and my headspace isn't a filled with history was it used to be. I completed my PhD in May 2016 on the heels of a failed academic job search. Truth be told, I hadn't expected it to be successful and was already preparing to move on from academia. At the time it was a personal decision with a lot of different things factoring in to my decision not to chase a tenure track position.

It really wasn't until several months later that I was able to look back at it not as a personal decision by at the entire system and there isn't a lot more to add other than Sun is right about everything.

I don't regret my PhD at all, but I was also very lucky to be set up for a relatively easy transition into industry thanks to time I had spent at H-Net which gave my resume a lot of credibility when it came non-academic work. Make no mistake, my PhD makes me an asset in industry, but it didn't get me the industry job and in fact probably hindered my job search a little. Academia has little interest in properly preparing grad students for industry work, or even to teach them how to position their PhDs for industry work if it comes to that and, on the other side of the equation, PhDs are rare enough that most industries don't really know what to make of a history/humanities PhD or understand exactly what their experience is or how their skills translate outside of academia.

I can't really recommend anyone go into a History PhD program right now - especially not someone who isn't extremely financially stable for some reason. It's a shame, but it's true. I'm stuck believing that society has a real need for people who can think, analyze, and synthesize the way historians learn to and knowing that we simply aren't in a position to make it a viable personal choice for almost anyone on an individual basis.

There are some really great resources out there for "recovering" academics like Beyond the Professoriate and if you follow #altac on twitter you'll see lots more discussion of how PhDs are coping with leaving academia.

You poor fuck.

I'm a recent-ish PhD in the life sciences, where we get 'all the money' (fucking lol). Shit is tough for us, I can only imagine how balls-to-the-wall tough it is for you guys in the humanities...

Don't do drugs, kids.

Ok, maybe do some drugs, but definitely don't do PhD.

 Hi, I’m 18 and getting ready to start college and am currently enrolled as a History/German double major. This post has brought up a lot of concerns for me. I had planned on going on to get a Masters and PhD in history because I love history, but like I said I’m only 18 so there’s still plenty of time to change my mind.

 I want to get a PhD in history because I want to contribute to something that I love, and I wanted to be a respected historian. That’s really the biggest concerns that I have with not getting a PhD in history. Will other’s still respect me as a historian if I don’t have a PhD? Can I still contribute to the community and teach others history through the internet and be respected and taken seriously by other historians? Or would I be throwing away my chances at being a respected historian out the window by changing my major? 

Can anyone provide some Canadian context to this post? I've heard terrible things about the US and UK, but rarely hear about the state of Canadian universities (though I've been led to believe the situation is similar).

My history advisor would make the same case from the other direction: there are so few jobs nationwide that everyone they were interviewing was absolutely world class, candidates who would have gotten positions at elite schools in the past.

I'm doing my PhD in Chemistry at the moment, a lot of these issues sadly apply there as well. While a STEM PhD (or leaving it early with a masters, as I will do next year) can be a better setup to a job outside (better, but certainly still awful if it's a research science job), the academia job market is just as poor here, postdocs are basically indentured servitude, etc.

Graduate school is broken.

The reason I chose chemistry (and math as my double major in undergrad) instead of what I liked & did best at in high school (History) is because everybody pushed me to it saying it was a much better career prospect. Well, I havne't lived as somebody with a history degree, but the prospects are been pretty terrible so far. STEM shortage is a myth. Everybody jokes about history majors and english majors etc working at starbucks, but I couldn't even get a job like that after graduating and my only choice was graduate school. The only people doing well are sleazy useless lying business/finance douches, and programmers/software engineers.

Actually, the whole economy is broken.

So what happened in 2008 that caused the crash?

This rant applies to most degrees currently offered in America.

I have my BA in history. I work at our aging office as a protective services investigator. My degree helps me every day with my job and I like using the following quip when given an odd look when others find out I don't have a degree in social work: "well, I do like old things." It usually gets a chuckle. Love my job, it was a fluke I found anything given most jobs don't see a history degree as super valuable.

This is what kills me inside.

I'm really good at verbal things and the humanities and what not and I'm also good enough at computer science (if I sit my ass down long enough to focus on it...) and maybe some sciences if I was interested in them (Although I'd be a shit engineer or mathematician and I really don't like chemistry and I really don't like biology and physics is a shit ton of math so I might be okay at best) so I can do humanities or social sciences or even something in stem.

The problem is who gives a flying fuck about linguistics and history ans anthropology now adays. No one. My mother was a Japanese anthropologist. Big fucking mistake. Had kids, took time off. Oh, you want a job? They don't fucking exist and you're too overqualified (who came up with this system I don't know) to teach in high school.

That basicallt means I have to do computer science, which isn't bad because I like computer science, but I'm also not sure if I want to spend the rest of my life teaching a bunch of transistors how to beat some guy in chess.

On top of having to throw any hope of doing he humanities out the window, I'm probably also going to have to throw out any hope of academia.

I'd love to be a professor, it sounds so fun, except burn in hell if you don't want to be an adjunct and I bet you comp Sci academia is over saturated at this point because it's no longer just a gay english guy and a remarkably flamboyant Hungarian nobleman doing everything.

What the fuck do I do? I've wanted to do this since I was a kid. My parents were academics. My grandparents were academics. Hell, the only reason I'm not part of an italian farming family or running a painting business or the son of a poor mechanic is because my grandparents turned to academia. The one thing I actually liked doing in my life that I felt useful was learning things / figuring things out / teaching things, but it seems to me all of that died out with my parents' generation

This dialogue reads like a really good novel. Even if you have no interest in history (why are you here?) it drags you into current cultural enigmas, the dilemma of universities as acme of intellectual experience, and basic modern economic miasma.

I live in Ireland, I don't really care where I live in the EU (In fact I plan to emigrate regardless as quite frankly I don't like living here at all, tbh), I wanted to go into history because quite frankly it's the only thing I'm good at, currently I'm doing a classical studies course with the Open University because quite frankly it's the only thing I can do after college fell apart, once this is done I'm hoping to go into history or archaeology or whatever. Do I actually have a future ahead of me or should I just fucking kill myself to spare myself the trouble?

I would even go so far as "Do not get a PhD period", except maybe for Chemistry and other fields that have substantial amounts of commercial jobs that require you to have that specific PhD.

This is all good and well, but where should the history graduate look in that case?

Would you see things like advanced statistics or computer science benefitting a humanities PhD? Combining your niche research field with, say, training in computer science that allows you to automate rhetorical analysis over tens of thousands of speeches or legal documents from the period?

Mind you I’m getting a science PhD, but I would think something like that would make you at least somewhat attractive to a more progressive department or demonstrate more translatable skills to industry.

I’ve had this conversation with some humanities folks about developing graduate programs that would be interdisciplinary between info science or math and humanities.

There are other teaching careers out there people. I have the privilege to teach A Level history (and related) to 16-19 year olds, and I love it. Yes, getting into academia is a nightmare, but I’m still going to do a PhD at some point fairly soon (when all the recent specification changes settle down). I managed a Masters part-time while teaching full time. Sure I will manage a PhD when I decide I’m ready. But I’ll be doing it because I want to

It's very dissappointing to read this. The world needs more smart, educated historians to help spread knowledge and keep the next generation smart, educated, and informed about the past, not fewer. I guess it's just another kind of failure of the free market / society / whatever it is. I can't argue about the individual advice - clearly it is a bad idea to go get a PhD in history, but it will be a loss if the information you guys have in your head disappears in a few generations.

I got a history degree and work in Finance in London... the UK is very different, the big banks don’t give a shit what you studied just so well in their tests

Meh...

Getl yourself a history degree anyway. you need a college degree to satisfy the HR folks and history will teach you how to sift through a huge amount of material to pluck out the kernels of gold. you will become a more well-rounded and rational person for it. It's hard to draw a direct correlation between that and your successful career but it exists none the less.

I dropped out of grad school and now teach APUSH and AP US Government. Best decision I ever made.

Hey OP, or anyone with knowledge about all this, I am also a PhD student, entering my 3rd year. I'm planning on taking comps this fall. If I want to get a job doing something else then what do I do? I don't even know where to start? Do I look for high school jobs? Teach myself how to code?

As I am a tenured professor in a non-history field, you have my honest sympathy. In an ideal world, we’d all be able to translate our passion into our professions.

For those of you who are die-hard lovers of history and determined to work in academia, may I suggest that you investigate fields of study that can incorporate history intensively without having ‘history’ on the label?

Apologies if I’m not allowed to post a root-level comment as a non-[primarily]historian. Mods, delete away if I’m crossing the line.

I love classical history, especially ancient Rome, and nearly decided to major it in during my college years (2006-2010) but I knew that I would probably have to go the teacher route and much education. I opted instead for Information Systems because I also liked computers. 4 years later I did a programming bootcamp and, in combination with my ISYS degree, I am way far ahead in my career as a software developer.

I mention this not to gloat but to say that I really wanted to spend my life with history but I knew there was no career in it. Instead, I read books for fun and can have a nice quality of life outside work. Thank you for this post.

Question: does this advice apply to those who have a high chance of getting into a T10 program? I’m not trying for a history PhD, but one in the social sciences. The advice I got was similar to this UNTIL I revealed my “pedigree.” Once my advisee realized I had a decent shot at a T10, their advice changed. Is this similar for history?

Can anyone talk about government sector or think tank work? I went into my history degree knowing these realities, and these were confirmed by PhDs that I RA’d for. I graduated with an emphasis in the history of the Modern Middle East and I’m really aiming for something along the lines of federal government work or a think tank and I’m wondering if a PhD is worth it in that instance?

How much does a university professor make in USA, roughly?

What caused the halvening of history PhD in the decade 1974-1985 from 1200 to 600?

(ref.the graph you posted)

Oh I can agree with this. I'm in an M.A. program right now and came in thinking that I wanted to go on to a PhD afterwards. The stress levels of the grad program plus the warnings that there are no jobs have made me change my mind there. Hell, even if I did land a job in academia, one of my professors told me that I'd probably not really be secure until I'm in my mid-40s. That just doesn't sound like fun to me.

If there no jobs in history, who is writing/discovering new textbook material? Who is advancing the field of ancient histories after they retire? Who is conducting the field research for events that are becoming accessible now?

Genuine questions.

Finished my undergrad over a decade ago and moved to where I live now to gain residency then enter a masters in public history program. During my year wait I got the bill for my loans, looked up what someone on my desired field made, added cost for masters, and made the soul crushing decision to go back into a tech field.

I really enjoyed the archiving and preservation aspect but that doesn't pay the bills.

Brutal post but true.

While I would love to add something of value to this cynical commentary, my experiences are mine and mine alone.

I sincerely doubt I will ever pursue anything beyond a M.A. because I understand it's not necessary, from a personal or professional perspective. I refuse, however, to concede that studying history beyond UG was/is a waste of time and effort. Everyday it feels more and more like a self-serving pursuit, and I'm okay with that. I've been lucky to have professors who were as honest about the academic job market as their positions allowed them to be. I think it's the professors and program directors that feed students' delusions of academic grandeur that are doing a disservice to the field. Allowing some young, bright UG to chase some mythical TT position is selling a bad bill of goods. The best and most supportive faculty have been open about the prospects of a job "in History." Once I explained that I knew what I was getting into, in the most cynical way possible, most became more honest and even more supportive.

The question, then, becomes, so what? Why continue with the hand wringing, and mourning of a field's demise? As most of us become accustomed to, we spend all this time examining the past, but we don't look to the future. If EVERYONE followed OP's advice, then the future is bound to become more bleak. We don't like to think about "what ifs" as a general rule of thumb, but Imagine what the world will look like in four or five generations without history majors, employed or unemployed. Thanks, but no thanks.

Ok. Well. Masters to teach highschool it is. Teaching history is teaching history, no matter to whom.

I don't study history, but I also love it with a passion. My advice? Learn to record and edit videos. Step two, start a youtube Channel. I'm sure the skills aquired from the study can help you express words better than the average person. There are so many people out there interested in history... I think the future is very clear, free education through the internet. Just have to think outside the box. I'm in the field of advertising and the trend for companies is to increase the budget for internet ad campaigns. Most of it is going to youtube and social media in general. Hope this helps!

Did History for my bachelors and regret it immensely. It was interesting, and I still love History, but I am 31 and fucked. Wish I had a time machine so I could slap my younger self. At this point, I don't really care what I do as long as I earn a decent living.

This was a tough read, but an important one.

Selfishly it also makes me feel a little better that I didn't go for a PhD about 10 years ago (and my family should probably thank me).

Increasingly I feel like pursuing a History (or other Humanities) PhD is like the modern day equivalent to a vocation to join the ministry. As in: sure, do it if you feel a true "calling", but also expect a similar sort of lifestyle.

So....how about a bachelors?

I jumped into the job market right out of high school because my then-fiancee and I needed money and her health wasn't the greatest.

Fast forward several decades and several years of trade school and I don't have a bachelors.

Is it worth it for me to get one in history? My field choices are somewhat limited due to dyscalculia and I've always had a deep, abiding fascination with history.

Any opinion on a Ph.D by publication?

As somebody getting a PhD at a good-but-not-top-ten institution (what really counts is that I have paid for none of this PhD), I don't regret my decision to get a doctorate...but I also went into it always thinking that A: I probably won't get a job in academia, and B: I'd be perfectly happy doing something else as long as I can incorporate research into it somehow. I was determined from the get-go to have a better Plan B than "hopefully a plague kills most of the early-career academics around me," so I started networking outside of academia early on. It's true that most places don't have faculty that are really eager to help you find those jobs, but I was very persistent in branching off on my own, and eventually found a faculty member who explicitly supports my goals (they're a bit of a black sheep, but who cares?). Because of that, I'm at the point where I make a comfortable living solely on my freelancing income as a subject matter expert for educational publishers, I'm extending my tentacles into editing and publishing, and I'm trying to set myself up as a consultant. This is of course outside of government work, think-tanks, or any other conventional job, which I've only begun to look at.

Now, the downside of this approach was that I had to kill myself to make it work. Even though my area of study didn't rest on extensive foreign-language work, I had just barely enough time to do this and churn out my dissertation, and apart from time spent with my partner, I jettisoned having any social life for the last four years. It took an incredible amount of discipline. But, at the end of the day, I've got a year of funding left, a drafted dissertation, and a parachute for when the academic job market assuredly doesn't work out for me. Moreover, I'm happy with that parachute. So if you're willing to make some of those sacrifices, getting a PhD isn't a bad idea. You just need a really realistic plan about what else you can do, and start working on that from the get-go.

If my question can in anyway endanger or harm anyone please do not respond to it, delete it, or tell me to delete it.

Insane rates of sexual harassment, including of grad students, and uni admins that actively protect male professors.

Is the community of historians doing anything about this? I remember awhile back there was a lot of discussion amongst philosophers about the rates of sexual harassment in philosophy, leading to a lot of public discussion.

Has there been a similar outpouring of public discussion about sexual harassment in history or has it either mostly been private or been part of broader sexual harassment in academia discussions?

I honestly really needed to hear this having struggled the past few months grappling with whether or not I should even attempt academia. My friends who work in the museum field have expressed similar sentiments, although it is slightly better market wise (though not by much) I just don't see the history field as a viable option anymore, as much as it crushes me to say that. Coupled with my fairly low grades from college due to family events anxiety/depression I doubt I'd stand much of a chance.

All that said, I haven't entirely given up on getting a masters, does anyone here have any experience with using a history MA outside the usual job prospects? Or about even getting a masters with a low GPA?

How are job prospects at community colleges in history?

This kills me to read. Guess I'll just parlay the BA I'll have in May into politics or some other soul-crushing shit.

I was a history major. Then I ran out of money, and rather than take out student loans I enlisted. Second best decision I ever made, only behind marrying my wife.

So, is an English PHD just as bad an idea?

This is a real job ad. Your job options are, in fact, garbage.

$28k a year is $14.00 an hour. For a PhD. WOW! They should be ashamed.

I work with people in the medical field with 12 week educational certifications who make more than that.

I'm so glad I stopped after my MA. I make pretty decent money as a high school teacher, adjunct on the side, and have good job security. My stipend for having a history MA will pay for my degree after about 30 years...but, I also get to teach all advanced kids as I'm the only dual credit history teacher on my campus.

I sometimes regret not finishing and going for my PhD, but threads like this make me feel better about it.

As someone who was in a BA to PhD track and dropped out at the MA level because of budget cuts removing funding, stress that drove me to increased medication and therapy, an unsupportive supervisor that tanked my network opportunities and mental health, all while watching other grad friends suffer the same and worse (the sexual harassment and racism in academia is no joke)...

Thank you for affirming I made the right decision!

Art History is similar, but just slightly better as there are art galleries and museums that can provide jobs to MAs and BAs to sustain them and provide relevant experience until they get a PhD, should they even want to. however, these jobs are only really in two cities in the USA, NYC and LA, and are highly selective to the point of nepotism.

and besides, the contemporary art world completely sucks, and that's the world that will hire you. so if you're reading this and you're wondering, "well what about art history?", take it from someone in the field, with a degree in the field- just get a degree that will provide you with a future and learn to grin and bear it, if you can. I'm a "success" story and have to decide between eating, transportation and paying my rent on a daily basis.

Hmmm

Im a Physician Assistant and i was thinking of getting a PHD in islamic studies or history for fun/personal satisfaction

I work as a clinician so im not looking to get hired for my phd

Would all this advice still apply to me?

this is all great information. is it really true that 50% of all humanities phds drop out? I'd like to see the study that found that. my phd (public policy) program had very few dropouts and the only person I can remember dropping out came back after two years of saving up funds to finish it off.

Hi, PhD drop-out here. Did it because of health issues, and my general attitude was devolving to the point where I thought it might affect my relationship with my now-wife. It took a ton of courage to just quit, had a very supportive supervisor, very supportive partner, and I still feel like a failure on a daily basis!

I will say I had a very positive grad school experience overall, working for professors who cared about students, students who cared about their work, and an engaged supervisor who did more than she could to help me through everything, but through all the difficulties and my impending non-employment status I couldn't finish my 3/4 finished dissertation.

Shit's rough.

I'm applying for a PhD in the sciences soon. Sometimes I regret not majoring in a type of engineering because I could have a lucrative job right now instead of having to go through 5-6 years of grad school. Then I read stories about humanities PhD's and realize that it's not that bad. It's still competitive but at least there are industry jobs for when I finish my PhD that I can use my skills for.

History is my passion. Thankfully people warned me about this

This is why I didn't continue to my PhD after my MA. Luckily for me, I do have a secondary teaching job, but the job prospects for history teachers at any level are very competitive. In MA (where my experience lies) the applicant pool for a high level school can be up to 150+ for a single position. Even for "lower achieving" districts, you can be fighting for a position against 60 others.

I'm currently in my senior year of a bachelor's in history at a state university and I'm too far down the hole to switch majors without essentially starting over from scratch. Is there any advice someone would be willing to share with me so that I would not have made this investment in vain?

What about if I get my PhD in history AFTER my career when I am looking for a new challenge? Sounds like your concerns are pinned on making money and some upcoming structural changes in American universities as a whole. Ok, imagine it's 20 years out and I'm 58, my first career has made me comfortable and 6-7 years study takes me into my mid-60s.

I have a degree in history and I am looking into getting a masters in Hospital admin. Law school was the goal, but I just want to get an advanced degree without getting into more debt, and better yet, my work will reimburse me for it!

I'm not an academic historian but this trend is likely true of my field as well (librarianship - anecdotally librarians know this to be true but I haven't looked at hard numbers), as it is of many others as well I'm sure. I often find myself talking young 'uns out of the degree if they ask.

HOWEVER, I'm starting to rethink this policy, or at least to think about qualifying the doom and gloom advice. The reason for that is that some of us do land plum, tenure-track jobs. Having myself gone from clueless philosophy bum to tenured, six-figure academic gig, I don't feel that I can ethically tell people to categorically not take the chance. If people take the advice not to take the degrees, they disqualify themselves from ever landing one. Sure, the odds are shit but it can happen. So I'm trying to change my tune to balance the perks with a realistic look at the odds of succeeding.

This is basically why I got out of history and back into accounting...sucks but better job prospects

What about a PhD in (quantitative) economic history (= department of economics), with an additional masters degree in history? I would imagine that if they would hire you for your economics skills, that you would also be able to teach a history class if the opportunity were there.

Ahh some day I'll have that beautiful PhD in history. That is of course after I ataine my MBA and am fearmly established in my logistics carrier with Kroger.

It doesn’t help that American universities are now essentially diploma mills. The standard required to complete a bachelors degree is laughably low. Yeah, it takes time but how much effort does it take to get a degree in all but a few fields? They push out so many new graduates every year, in all fields, that the value of a bachelors degree has significantly degraded. This is now pushing more people into pursuing graduate school that would never have needed to go to graduate school in the past.

I was hoping for a polisci PhD. Now I also feel scared

Sadly true. Although, my old university did see a new professor gain his tenure pretty quickly. He had advantages, though. He was a white American man who taught English in China, gained fluency in the language, and came back to do his grad school with a specialization on Chinese history.

I imagine Americans who can competently speak and read Mandarin (I'm unsure of his grasp of other dialects but he did do his PhD at Harvard,) are pretty rare and that went a long way.

So...I suppose you can find a job, but it's going to be incredibly hard. Look for advantages like this, I suppose.

I have a B.A. in international relations and an M.A. in history and oriental studies. I live in Germany and I recently considered to start a PhD either in history of international relations or in political science, because the topic I'm considering is rather interdisciplinary, but recently I began to have doubts and to think that maybe I should rather build a career. How's the general situation in Europe and also for political scientists?

Honestly, the job situation is exactly why I didn't pursue it post grad. I would have loved to, but I finished undergrad in 09, right after the job market hit the shitter. Didn't make sense to put more money into a field when I couldn't say if that would get me a job.

It's happening in so many fields in academia, unfortunately (including some of the physical and life sciences).

For those who love history, public high school jobs are much easier to come by than academia. Get your BA in history and education. Just a thought for another option that allows you to continue your pursuit of history.

I, too, love history. However, I decided not to major in it because I wanted to have more options than trying to land a relatively rare job teaching or an extremely rare job doing something else history related. Thank you for reaffirming my decision. Have you thought about getting into Economics? It's also pretty awesome.

I feel better getting a degree in criminal justice after reading this

Hi, everyone. I'm a rising senior, studying history, and am currently applying for graduate study. Joining academia is a dream of mine. History research is my passion and I have a strong desire to teach as well. The career prospects, however, are not so dreamy. This is especially true if I can't get into schools such as Columbia, Harvard, or Michigan, which are notoriously competitive programs. I've started to wonder if it was worth it to get the doctorate degree. In my time as an undergraduate, I've also garnered a passion for educational equity. Since my freshman year, I've tutored low-income students through organizations that my university partners with, as well as the public school district in my city. While I realize that teaching is hard, tiring work with shit pay, I'm still interested in it.

I plan to apply to grad schools, as well as programs in education. If I do get into a "second-tier" school and an education program, should I even bother with the graduate program? Should I bother with the PhD at all?

What are the odds the market is any better in Canada? *wipes forehead and tugs at collar

Loved history in college ... my good memory allowed me not to study too much, just attend and listen closely.

Time to graduate ... no future ... but I could influence people and was knowledgeable ... so salesman leading to self employment.

tl;dr: Do go beyond college with history, it is not going to help.

I am with the English department, in a south asian country and the job scenario is really bleak here too. People drag on for years as ad-hocs(our term for adjuncts), making okay money but zero job security and benefits.(Our labour laws make sure adjuncts get paid as much as tenure-d profs)

Well this is extremely disheartening to hear, I'm from Australia and I'm currently studying a Ba in ancient history. Im aware it isn't amazing here either but there are some jobs still floating around I believe, I was thinking of going into archaeology or becoming a historian.

Its sad hearing and seeing the state of affairs history as a subject is in. I wonder if it will ever bounce back...

What are those allied fields?

I am pursuing a minor in History and A Minor in Spanish with a BA in international relations and now I'm very scared.

I love history, I have loved history since I was a small child and seriously wanted to study history for a few years when I was a teenager. Advice like this made me change my mind and pursue one of my other interests. Talking to friends who studied humanities, I am SO GLAD I ended up doing something STEM-related (which I genuinely love doing and find fascinating). I still enjoy learning about history (this sub is probably my favourite one on reddit) but I am already stressed af about getting a job after a STEM(ish) maste... I don't even want to image how bad my situation would be if I had studied history.

I always told myself "it will work out somehow" and deciding on a job/ more specific field is something I can worry about later. Now here I am, finished school and ready to go to a university and worried about making the right choice. The only things I ever really líked are history first and foremost and computer science second. Technically I could simply chose information science and go from there but the idea of history falling short for the next 3-5 years and maybe not being able to at least combine IT and history later on is killing me inside. Majoring history in my local german university requires you to chose a second smaller course where I could take computer science but I wonder If that's enough to secure me plenty of options later on.

As a non-American, what is a phd?

I got my Masters because the university I work at offered a MS in Instructional Design with 95% of the classwork etc being online. I looked at getting my phd in History just for the hell of it and NONE of the classes were online or even really blended. I thought OK thats fine I can go to my classes on my lunch hour then. Nope. They were all at night. As a working parent I cant do it so I just forgot about it

This is so interesting to me because I love history and I'm very good at it, but I was concerned about the job prospects. Luckily, senior year of high school I did a HARD 180 and now I'll be getting degrees in physics and math (and a minor in history)

Anyone got a U.K. perspective here? I’m in the early stages of writing my proposal for a September 2019 start. I know history is a much more respected degree here than in the US, but I guess that doesn’t necessarily help with prospects! If I were to get into the course I want, I’m not particularly committed to a career in academia by would be good to hear about the options.

B.A. in history here the story about getting a job is the same - the debt is less.

[Non-applied but I can pretend to be] Mathematics PhD here who likes to read up on other fields for fun.

I feel very sorry for your situation.

By no means is history doing great in my country, Germany, but this is just so sad. I have little else to add but my sympathy. Seeing research being treated this way is quite horrible.

Yeah this makes me feel better about going for my master’s in museum studies and not a PhD in Art History or History. The world is getting dumber and people don’t want to learn from past mistakes.

Man, this hurts to read, but I left the thought of pursuing academia long ago. Luckily for me I had hard skills that have been my back up. When I started college, I started in Engineering, realized I did not enjoy it, and switched to History, which was a passion and a hobby (and almost all my elective hours were in history already so I could graduate sooner than any other department). I gave thought to continuing on, but shelved it as bills became more important. I'm still proud of my BA in History regardless.

Luckily for me I started life as an engineering major, and held down a paid drafting internship (basically) for five years. I was able to pivot through a few gigs and got my current job as a project manager thanks to that, and while I'm jot rolling in money I'm making more than double that job posting you shared with us, with a lot of room to grow and bonuses available.

It is a bit sad to not really make a difference or contribute in any meaningful way to our cultural record, but I can support myself and support my partner who is going to be going back for their masters and doctorate (STEM, Marine Biology). I do wish you and anyone dedicating themselves to academia the best of luck. You have my envy for what you get to do, and my sympathies for what it costs.

From what I understand, academic historians fail to make their works and careers practical. They fail to contribute in a way that is sustainable for a livelihood. Perhaps what they study is too narrow and their works fail to change societal thought in a noticeable way. For example, it may be interesting to learn about the process of Bronze Age metalworking or the development of early gunpowder weaponry, but how do these techniques have a practical application in today's world?

Perhaps the social sciences rely too much on the same methodology that the hard sciences employ. Should the same tools that are employed within physics and biology be used to study more abstract concepts and observations such as human behavior and societal development? Is the resulting data meaningful and how can we interpret it?

Maybe historians fail to be creative. Maybe they treat history too much as a hobby of interesting facts and events without making any meaningful connection to today's challenges. Perhaps historians and social scientists ought to ask more realistic questions such as "how does knowing history solve today's problems?"

Ah shit that kind of scares me... I'm one year into a bachelor's degree specializing in history and I'm kinda wondering if I should shift focus

Can you do anything with a Master's in the field outside of academics? Can you consult?

And this is why I'm gonna study engineering. Way more job opportunities.

"Museum work is probably more competitive and you will not have the experience or skills."

This really depends on how you spent your summers between undergraduate and any prior graduate semesters. I did my undergraduate degree in history, spent each summer as a National Park Service Interpreter/Ranger and also served as a Ambassador/tour guide at my university. I followed this up with a graduate degree in recreation management and have a full time historical educator/ranger job in a state park agency today with eh pay but significant benefits.

Having said that, if you want to be a museum educator, there is no need to have a PhD. A Master's Degree is fully sufficient and a bachelor's with seasonal experience will usually suffice as well. This is not to say the job field isn't hard to get into, for it is challenging and requires you to do your time. But if you are sufficiently prepared, motivated, enjoy public speaking, and/or working as a conservator/exhibits curator/etc, jobs still do exist.

I'm currently an undergrad in Scotland thinking of careers with the national trust or something similar, but it's still such a competitive market.

The US free market may not respect the effort it takes to study for a PhD in history, but there are a lot of people, here, that respect and appreciate the time and effort that you and other moderators put into making this forum interesting and high quality. Money is a poor way to judge value. Anyone reading this is a bit biased, but studying society's past mistakes has value, yet somehow we're not seeing and appreciating that value.

Bear with me. Classical music can be a bit stodgy at times. I think its great, but classical music can be tough to appreciate without context. There are other ways to introduce music, and I'd speculate that many new listeners appreciate classical music after being exposed in a movie, or video game, etc. Many classical groups aren't interested in newer music, but many people acquired a new appreciation for traditional classical music through a change in traditional values. Maybe the study and application of history also needs a change as well, and a wider segment of the US would appreciate history (aesthetically as well as economically) with such a change.

I studied and continued to study engineering, but I took enough extra undergraduate English, foreign language and History classes to get a major in some combination of Humanities if it were allowed. I found personal value in studying 17th century piracy, and 18th century British maritime life, not only because it was fun, but was valuable because it taught lessons which I could apply.

So as a lay person, realizing that I'm about to diminish the life-work of a large number of passionate people, whom I respect: How do we make the study of history more applicable to the 21st Century, and what would these changes look like in Schools, Universities, Companies and Government?

I've always been interested in the intersection of virtual reality and education. Would there be value in (as the technology permits) creating historical simulations of events from different perspectives in order to teach a user what life was like as a type of person, at a place and a time. For example, Papers, Please is a video game where the player acts as a passport checker in a fictional Soviet satellite, balancing bureaucracy, a limited budget and a hungry/sick/cold family, and taking bribes vs the threat of losing the job. It's not something I ever imagined being interesting, but acting as this fictional person is far more accessible than a Masters Thesis on Passport Checker Salaries in Arztotzka 19xy-19xz. Simulations could be a valuable output as a teaching tool to make history more accessible and valued.

TLDR; Perhaps the traditional output of a profession in history is not valued not because society is wrong, but because the product is wrong for society.

Do you think it will come back around? For example are there researchers combining their domain expertise in history with technology? Or perhaps historians pushing for particular policy changes due to their understanding of how countries have behaved in the past?

I can't disagree with your post to a huge degree, but a pet theory of mine is that as STEM becomes more saturated idea generation and creativity may start to come more from humanities and their collaborations with other disciplines. What's your opinion on this?

We welcome perspectives from other countries. :)

You mentioned museum work is even more competitive. As someone who is considering museum studies, can you shed some light on that statement?

Thank you for this post. It was very eye opening if not a little sad.

/u/CatieO, sorry, I didn't realise this was lined up for you to answer! I'm also an early modernist, though I work on literature in manuscript these days. Your stuff on Titus in that thread was so interesting, can't wait to see what else you come up with!

What are the "allied" fields you're referring to?

As someone who got their history BA in 2008, this cut me deep. Glad I cut bait when I did.

I'm about to enter grad school for education in secondary studies with a concentration in history. I do want to teach college later, but reading this make it seem like a lost cause. I'm glad I found the article, as it at least made me think a little more about my course in life.

What would you suggest someone in my position do? Stick with teaching high school?

Welp, time to give up. Thanks

Excellent post, I guess it's a good thing that my non-history undergrad classes were all C's, so I couldn't get into a grad school even if I wanted to.

Also, this isn't a problem that is limited to history, it's pretty common across almost all of academia, even hard sciences.

Tenured professors have an amazing quality of life compared to other professions.

I am not saying it's "easy", but they get to teach the subject they love to mostly motivated and ambitious young people.

Almost no working on nights and weekends and holidays and even less work in the summer. Great job security.

You get to do research in the field you love and usually on a subject you are greatly interested in.

People respect you at the University and in society. You are viewed as smart and educated by most of society.

As jobs go, it's probably one of the best in the world.

This also results in people desperately wanting them, which drives up applications and people getting their Ph D's in the hopes of getting one of these excellent jobs.

The flood of people applications also drives down salaries.

Why would a University give you tenure when they can get away with making someone a permanent adjunct? If they don't like it, then there are 1,000 other equally qualified people who will take the adjunct job.

Of course, these tenured jobs aren't all sunshine, anything can be ruined by a shitty boss or co-workers. Hell, Disney Land sucks if you are there with the wrong people.

My point is that when you compare the job characteristics of a tenured professor to almost all other jobs, it comes out way ahead.

Fuck math

Thank you for this post. I have a BA in History and i HATE IT. The degree has done nothing to help me, taught me almost no skills and is only useful for trivia/jeopardy. Some people will say, but but..it teaches you writing and critical thinking/analysis! Yeah i knew all that before the degree.

Anyways, i dont start at the phd level, i tell people going for their BA in History dont do it!!

Funny thing is that im watching, life of the party with melissa mcartney and the useless majors in thus movie(art history, archaelogy, kinisiology) are useless! I myself went back and get a masters, but i still somethings play with the idea of going for corporate communications, only to have a degree that actually has job options.

Just to offer an anecdote on being overqualified in a technical field: I have my bachelor's and masters in engineering, but wanted to live in a small college town where not a lot of engineering is needed. More engineering than history, of course, but still not much. The positions were all filled by engineers with 30 years of experience who wanted to semi-retire and get football season tickets.

I applied to be a field technician for a medical device company. My master's came with a biomedical certificate, and my first job had been for a medical device company. I could do the work. The money was fine - not quite as much as engineering, but far better than teaching German at UIC apparently. The cost of living was low, and it was a beautiful place to live. But I couldn't, no matter how much I explained the local situation, and how much I wanted to live in this sleepy college town, convince the hiring manager that I wouldn't bolt in six months. "You're just too qualified. We can't waste money training you." I ended up at Radio Shack, because I stupidly thought I'd be helping people with technology, instead of pushing cell phones on everyone who made eye contact. You poor history students won't have that in, and you'll be even more overqualified once they have to call you doctor, so you'll probably end up at Arby's or dealing drugs. Don't get your PhD in the humanities.

Probably not a popular opinion, but colleges should abolish History, English, Philosophy, and Religious Studies departments and just consolidate them all under a single Humanities department. We will have to create new positions for all the deanlets and administrators, but it can be done.