next »

[enviroguy]

I am a lawyer and a writer, and I am considering applying for PhD programs in History or, potentially, American Studies.  Even though my academic background is interdisciplinary in nature, with an emphasis on literature and law, I feel that my long-term research and writing agenda would best fit into the less theoretical, more narrative-based areas of History or AmStudies.  I do, however, have some concerns about pursuing the degree in that History, as a discipline, is not something I feel passionately about, and I don't know that I would stand up to years of teaching American History 101 any better than to years of filing briefs or years of writing articles on business news (my present and previous occupations). Also, I am concerned that AmStudies programs may have too much of a culture studies angle for me.  Any advice on parsing these issues?

Another question I have bears more on the nature of academic writing. My writing style and literary ambition may tend more to what could be classified as nonfiction than history, or as academic.  But I also crave the rigor and depth of extensive and original research behind my writing.  I guess my hope is that there will be room to unify these two things in academia.  Is that wrong-headed?

         

 

[histgradstudent]

What are your concerns about history as a discipline? I couldn't quite figure out what you were uncomfortable with.

As far as writing style, academic prose doesn't have to be boring, it just usually is. If you can genuflect in the right directions I think you will be fine writing in non-fiction prose. You just need to realize that in a dissertation you are going to have to devote considerable time to historiography within your text. But if you don't leave room to be accused of lack of rigor, I don't think writing interesting prose will be a problem.

[larryc]

Passion is the great essential for success in grad school, don't leave home without it. As to the writing, we are in a period of historians returning to their craft of story-telling and trying to reclaim a wider audience.  Good writing is welcomed, it just isn't common.

American Studies is a lot of fun and very worthwhile, but I think the job prospects are even worse than history.

What exactly is your area of interest, and what is your long term goal?

[fiona]

Simplest fact to mention: only 30% of Ph.Ds in history ever get tenure track jobs. It's not a good risk, especially if you don't have passion for the subject anyway. There are almost no jobs at all in American Studies, and that's not going to change. Universities all genuflect to "interdisciplinary work," but the jobs (the few that exist) are in traditional depts.

Sounds like you might take a course or two in historical research and then go out and write what you want to write. It may not be worth the time and lack of money that a degree entails.

Or you might want to look into a course on writing Creative Non-Fiction at whatever univ. is near you.

[reluctant]

Fiona, you have cited that statistic many times on these boards.  Where did you get it?  THe latest AHA reports are far more optimistic and NEVER would even cite a statistic based on ALL PhDs.  Everything varies widely by field and program.  I just would prefer if you backed that up with some knowledge or a little nuance. THe market is tough, but I think you are a little alarmist.  About 75% of the people I know on the job market have landed tenure track jobs within a few years, obviously anecdotal. But what is your source?

[historydude]

Actually, Fiona's figure is pretty close to accurate.  See the AHA Perspectives job market report for 2004 (http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/2005/0501/0501new1.cfm).  They analyzed the job market over the previous 15 years, and 63% of those who earned doctorates in history did not show up in any history department directory or other professional historical organzation.  So only 37% history PhDs found something related to their doctoral degree, and that's including adjunct, visiting, temporary work, and I assume public history as well, not just t-t jobs. 

To the OP, your lack of passion for nitty gritty historical research would be my biggest concern.  Especially when you get to the diss stage, you have to love surviving on bread and cheese in overpriced, dingy hotel rooms with a crappy showers for months at a time (well, maybe not as bad in the US as abroad) just to dive head first into the archival material every day looking for those precious historical nuggets that will probably end up getting relegated to a footnote somewhere anyway.  Some of us love that kind of work.  If you don't, maybe you should consider other paths.  Offhand, it sounds to me like what you really want to do is write popular histories or perhaps historical novels, either of which can be done without a doctorate, sometimes quite well.

[fiona]

Thanks, Historydude, for supplying the source. I remember Flanders' saying good thing under the ancient regime.

I'd also like to echo what others have said about a passion for your subject. I love burrowing in old archives, reading manuscripts, and remembering arcane stats (such as 40% t-t employment in English, 30% in history). I love creating the indexes for my own books.

But that kind of detail work is not for everyone, and some people get really bored when I blather on about my discoveries.

Main point: Don't do things, career or personal, that you don't really, really want to do. That goes for marriage and having children as well as going to grad school.

[enviroguy]

Thanks for all the responses. The link to the AHA site was especially helpful, as was the feedback on the issue of passion for the work of history. I love rummaging around for information, and prefer documentary research to reporting, which is part of what lead me to these considerations, but having no formal background in historiography or any real experience with the practice of the methodologies, it's hard to say exactly how much love I'll have for it. Putting that aside, though, I think it's the subject matter that draws me, and the opportunity to do significant work in my particular field of interest. Do people have any advice on seeking an appropriate place to study environmental history? 

[booknerd]

What about someone who wants to work at a small LAC?  Could and interdisciplinary PhD be a plus? I, too, have been considering a PhD in American Studies versus one in Rhetoric/Composition.  My MFA is in creative nonfiction and without a book in print, forget getting a job.  Plus I do love research and I really love teaching.  I'm also a Cultural Studies nut. So I'm leaning towards Am Studies, but everyone keeps telling me that I'll never get a job. 

But when I peruse job ads, those that I'm interested in call for a PhD in "English or a closely related field."  So for someone seeking a 4/3 or 4/4 load is Am Studies okay?

Also, I don't put alot of stock in statistics.  My dept. has place 100% of its graduating PhDs in t-t jobs the last five years...and I'm not at a top school.

[larryc]

I can't speak to English, but in my history department we would not be likely to hire an American Studies PhD. For all the talk of interdisciplinary studies, hires are made within disciplines.