<p>I'm currently pursuing an MA in History and am contemplating a Ph.D. At first I intended to try to find work with an MA before committing to a Ph.D, but the more I think about it and look around, I apparently need a Ph.D to even do part time editing work on high school history textbooks, haha. I figure if I can get funding there's no reason NOT to go for my Ph.D.</p>
<p>Trouble is, my interest lies in the non-academic job field. I think I could enjoy being a professor, don't get me wrong, but the excitement for me would be doing research and writing work for Congress, the State Department, conducting military histories for units, etc. But I'm having trouble narrowing down what I want to study. I've always been interested in 19th century American history, and this is the track I had been going down. But I think diplomatic history with some sort of specialty in South Asia, East Asia or the Middle East (history) would be a more practical route to go. But I'm very indecisive and worried that whatever I commit to will be obsolete or glutted (like 19th century America already is) by the time I'm in the job market.</p>
<p>So I guess my question is this, what subfields of history do you see being most useful for non-academic (primarily research and writing) work? Is my idea of studying diplomatic history and focusing a bit on Mid-East or Asian history smart or am I being naive in how things work out there in the job market? I would have to learn a language, which I'm not very good at (and why I started off with pure American history), but it seems like there would be greater opportunity for work in that field. </p>
<p>On a side note, which fields in history do you see as being most in demand? I've glanced around and at least as far as professorships go it's pretty evenly balanced.</p>
<p>Whatever you do, pay lip service to history departments unless individual professors are discouraging you from going into academia or suggesting that you keep your eyes open for other possibilities. History departments, in general, are not interested in training their graduate students for non-academic jobs even though AHA is pushing them to do so.</p>
<p>To do any field outside of American history, you will need good foundation in a language. Don’t study a non-American field unless you actually WANT to write a dissertation in that and actually make the time to study the necessary languages. It can be difficult and frustrating to learn (new) languages if you don’t already enjoy learning about the nation(s)'(s) history, culture, and literature.</p>
<p>If you have some great ideas for 19th century America, go for it. They are actually wanted, more so than 20th century as pretty much everyone and their mothers are applying and working in that area. You will need to focus your interests a bit towards diplomatic or political if you are interested in getting a job within the government with your Ph.D.</p>
<p>You should really follow your passions. If you are absolutely passionate about 19th century America, follow the scent. You will be a happier graduate student and have greater success in writing your dissertation on a topic that you actually enjoy. Don’t pick up Middle East or Southeast Asia just because you “think” it’s the “right” thing to do. If you don’t enjoy learning Arabic or Vietnamese, then you are going to have a difficult time doing research.</p>
<p>Very good points. I knew that, too, I guess I’m just freaking out about the terrible job prospects. It was easier when the time to pay off my bills was years in the future. I had hope that “it would work out eventually” but now that the time is getting closer fast and the situation isn’t improving, I’m anxiously trying to find some niche that will get me a job.</p>
<p>I love traditional diplomatic history, but lack the language base (though I know basic histories) of other parts of the world. And a government job sounds like a good choice to me for a non-academic career, but it seems like there are even more hurdles to getting a job like that than an academic one.</p>
<p>Is there really a demand for 19th century American history in academia? Honestly my interests range from 1850-1920 or so, which sort of blends my interest in diplomatic history (Teddy Roosevelt, the Spanish-American War, Philippine Insurrection, World War I, Wilsonianism, etc.) and late 19th century America (Civil War, Wild West, Reconstruction, Gilded Age, Progressivism, etc.). </p>
<p>I’ve actually got this theory that there’s a lot of similarities between that era and our own.</p>
<p>But to get back on track, let’s say I do something like that, is anyone aware of any specific career paths? There’s so much general information floating out there that it’s not all that helpful to someone who has absolutely no guidance from anyone (every historian I know is a professor who has never worked outside academia).</p>
<p>The government certainly employs historians, though at any given time there probably are only a relative few positions available (go on USAJobs and look up the historian category in the job search if you want). I think there is some application to the intelligence/foreign policy community if you want to go that route. Besides that, academia, and maybe some sort of think tank or museum I don’t think you’ll find that many career paths where a history Ph.D fits in perfectly.</p>