A Question on Majors...

Graduate School
1

<p>So! I'm a history major, and before you try to dissuade me (oh you'll never be employed, oh you'll die on the street, oh you remind me of that teacher I want to murder), I have a problem. Specifically, I know exactly what time period I want to study (though I am nearly equally obsessed with others) and what area of the world entailed by that period. However, I'm not quite sure what major would fit me best...</p>

<p>Basically, I'm looking to become a historian specializing in the Late Antique period. I'm afraid if I go for a straight history degree, I'll never encounter a class teaching my period, and graduate not actually being a specialist in the Late Antique period. If I go the classics/studies degree route, I'll soon get hit over the head with my complete ineptitude with languages. Of course, Latin (to me at least, PLEASE don't get offended) is a hell of a lot more interesting than Spanish, probably because it's dead, but Spanish is what I'm taking right now and...</p>

<p>Anyway, you can see my problem. I definitely intend to LEARN Latin (for my career), but I want to focus on the Late Antique period ENTIRELY FROM A HISTORICAL PROSPECTIVE. Yes, that means using literature, culture, and economics as sources and EVIDENCE in the great historical detective story, but I don't want to major in something that will take me off the path I want to walk. </p>

<p>Also: I like the look of Archaeology, though I don't think I want to go that route since I've never actually BEEN on a dig and get the horrible feeling I'll find out how absolutely mind-numbing the field can really be somewhere in the middle of Turkey, 4-8 years AFTER I've made the biggest mistake of my life...</p>

<p>So! To sum this up (yes, I did make you read that massive mouthful):
1. If I'm hoping the concentrate on the period historically and also like other history, is a straight-up history degree good for my intended specialty?
2. How do you specialize your history degree? I see professors all the time who are "specialists in (x)," but I'm not sure how they got that. I see a lot of professors of Late Antique studies n' things with Philosophy degrees, and I definitely do NOT want a philosophy degree (sorry Phil majors but I'm no Socrates).
3. AAAAAAAND: should I even be worrying about this? Is this all post-grad stuff? </p>

<p>Basically: I like anything pre-20th century, but am only REALLY obsessed with anything pre-19th century (excepting the civil war) and would only REALLY like to make a career out of Late Antiquity (and yes, I still refer to Istanbul as Constantinople, if you're Muslim, I'm not a hater, just a die-hard Byzantine). </p>

<p>If you're not irritated at me already for my ramblings, please help. </p>

2

<p>PhD’s are specialists, not undergrads. However you would want to be sure your college has course offerings that suit you for your electives. And it would be nice if you were able to take some grad classes in your upper division. You could look at which PhD granting universities specialize in your area and look at their undergrad programs as they should be strong. But others may be too. To see the difference</p>

<p>Look at Berkeley grad program
<a href=“http://history.berkeley.edu/graduate/study-ancient-history”>http://history.berkeley.edu/graduate/study-ancient-history&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>then undergrad
<a href=“Major Requirements | Department of History”>Major Requirements | Department of History;

<p>First you are educated in breadth, then you go for depth and narrower specialization. Here is a good visual for how education works.
<a href=“The illustrated guide to a Ph.D.”>Matt Might: Not found;

3

<p>

You picked the wrong field if you can’t tackle languages. For a shot at a good graduate program, I’d recommend competency in both Greek and Latin (3+ years of both) and reading knowledge of German and either French or Italian. If you want to do anything whatsoever with Arabic, that should be started in undergrad as well. The language learning doesn’t end there…graduate school would likely involve learning more languages like Syriac and Coptic. You can’t do history if you can’t tackle the sources. </p>

<p>A history major is fine. Medieval studies, which is inherently interdisciplinary, might be a good choice too. The courses you take will matter far more than the title of your major. </p>

4

<p>If I were you I’d would double Major and combine a practical major you can use in the workforce. You might not know now exactly what you want to do and at the end of your undergrad you might either be fed up with school or move on to get a Masters and get fed up after that. I can tell you many of my History major friends are working in jobs now that have no relation to History. </p>

<p>You could also look to get your teaching certificate so you can teach High School history for a living and focus you primary interest as a hobby. </p>

<p>The two other people that responded also gave you great advice. Also as one of them has stated to specialize you need to get a PhD. As a PhD student myself I can tell you no matter what you get your PhD in it will be a massive investment and sacrifice. I’ve been in school now almost 10 years and have another year left to go. Fortunately I’m in a funded area of science so my PhD is paid for and I get a small stipend to support myself. I’m afraid History is not a field you’ll get a stipend to my knowledge. </p>

<p>Also another thing to note, the arts, social sciences and humanities are very competitive fields to gain professorship and funding is very limited. So even after getting a PhD you still could face many years of struggles and maybe never achieve finding a position in your area. Academia is a business as well, so supply and demand comes into play and if there is very limited interest in your field your chances are even lower at finding a research position. </p>

<p>To be really blunt, many of my friends getting specialized PhD’s in fields that fall in obscure areas like this, typically come from well to do families thus do not face potential poverty if they fail to land something after. </p>

<p>You need to think about life after college. I’m not saying don’t study or even major in something you’re passionate about. But unless you have some form of external support I’d really consider adding a second major in something that will help you gain employment. Even then if you can get a decent job, you could allocate some of that income to further your education and you’ll also have a fall back plan as well. </p>

5

<p>This right here</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Indicates to me that you need to major in history. If you know that you want to take a historical approach/perspective and use historical methods, then you need to study history. If you are at a college with a classics department, you could always major in history and minor in classics, or you can just take all the classes you want to take in classics. The name on your degree is not as important as what classes you take and what you know how to do.</p>

<p>So</p>

<ol>
<li>Yes.</li>
<li>In grad school. Undergrad is for breadth and developing a good foundation.</li>
<li>No, not really. You do want to take a few classes in your area/period if you can, but this is stuff meant to really happen at the graduate level.</li>
</ol>

<p>*</p>

<p>Also, excuse me for this, but the idea of a “practical major” needs to die.**</p>

<p>First of all, humanities and social science majors are employed - and they are employed at similar rates as natural and physical science majors. The major differences are in salaries, not employment rates - but humanities and social science majors generally make middle-class salaries. I know gainfully employed philosophy, English, history, anthropology, psychology, Spanish, and political science majors with no graduate degrees.</p>

<p>Second of all, again the name on your diploma is not what’s important - it’s what you know and what you’ve done. A history major who interns at a Fortune 500 company and learns Python is probably more employable than a computer science major with a 2.5 and no experience. I agree that you need to prepare for a Plan B, but that doesn’t necessarily mean double-majoring in something you are not interested in. It means gaining the kinds of experiences that employers value.</p>

<p>Given how competitive the academic market is, you do need to come to terms with the probability that you may never be a tenure-track professor of history (or anything) and that you may need to take on a non-academic - and probably non-history related - job after spending 8 years studying history and earning a PhD. But if you are OKAY with that, then there are many jobs that a PhD in history can do, especially a PhD in history who knew from Day One that her options were slim and who began preparing for non-academic careers by interning, networking, and learning skills. And there are worse things than spending 8 years getting paid to study something you love (and honestly, getting paid around the same amount that your peers will when they first enter the workforce).</p>

<p>The unemployment rate for doctoral degree holders is about 2.2%. PhD holders do not have significant odds of being in poverty after earning the PhD UNLESS they completely refuse to face reality and choose to adjunct for years on end in hopes of getting an academic job. It’s not easy out there, but I know plenty of PhDs in relatively obscure/impacted fields who left academia and have fulfilling careers doing something else. Check out VersatilePhD for examples.</p>

<p>And I want to end by saying that I am not encouraging going for a PhD in the humanities or social sciences; nor am I discouraging the idea of picking up a second, useful major or minor. I’m just saying that it is not necessary to double-major in something personally uninteresting in order to get a job.</p>

<p>**I just wanted to come back and make it clear that I am not targeting you specifically, @livingsmall. But I’ve heard this batted around a lot - both here on CC and on the Internet at large - when the statistical evidence doesn’t bear this out.</p>

6

<p>Thanks for the reply!
That’s exactly what I’ll do, and to be honest, I completely agree with you! If you look at this thing called "The Many Careers of History PHD’s from the National historical society, out of the 2,000 odd people they survey, TWO were unemployed. 70% were in academia, I think FOUR worked outside of history related jobs…</p>

<p>But of course, I know it’s a very competitive field. I’m not going to sit around and “wait for a management position” :wink: If I can’t get my dream job the day I step out of college…</p>

<p>I can always be a reenactor to slake my lust for history (another emoticon… I’m limiting myself to one this time). </p>

<p>And… wait… they PAY you to get your Doctorate in history??? Is this…</p>

<p>WOW. That’s new…
Suddenly very excited… </p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>The short answer: YES.</p>

<p>The longer answer: In the olden days, the vast majority of PhD programs in history funded all of their students. You would get tuition coverage, health insurance, and a stipend designed to cover your living expenses. Hooray!</p>

<p>These days, most programs still offer that kind of package. However, as funding and support in academia - particularly the humanities - has shrunk, some programs have dropped their financial funding or reduced it significantly.</p>

<p>The best programs (by which I mean probably the top 50 or so, at least) still offer what we call “full funding” to all their admitted students - “full funding” meaning tuition and fees, health insurance, and a stipend to cover living expenses (usually between $20K and $30K a year). In return, you typically have to assist or sole teach some basic service history courses - which is ok, because you need that kind of experience to be a professor anyway. Most good programs will offer that funding for around 5-6 years; the funding beyond that may not be guaranteed, but it may be the case that most students finish in 6 years anyway OR that students who need to stay beyond 6 years almost always find an alternative way to stay funded, or both.</p>

<p>There are some lower-tier programs that may not offer funding to their students or may offer reduced/inadequate funding. One of the most common is to give you a stipend that’s too small to cover your living expenses (I would say anything less than about $20K. I’ve seem some stipends that are like $14K.) Another common way is to give you a stipend, but require you to pay some tuition and fees out of it (i.e., they pay you $25K, but you have to pay tuition & fees of $8K, meaning that your stipend is really $17K). Still other programs offer funding to some of their students and none to others. Then there are the programs that offer no funding at all.</p>

<p>RUN, don’t walk, from these. If you are an excellent candidate you should get funding to pursue your PhD. The other thing is that a career as a history professor is decently-compensated but not well enough to repay the kind of debt you would assume if you pay for 8 years of tuition, fees, and living expenses out of pocket.</p>