Is history useless?

[LightSpectra]

There's thousands of English speaking colleges and community colleges that could use a doctor who got his Ph.D in a decent university. Once you got that you're set.

What really sucks is trying to get a good job with just a B.A. or M.A. in liberal arts.

 

[Phrossack]

There's thousands of English speaking colleges and community colleges that could use a doctor who got his Ph.D in a decent university. Once you got that you're set.

What really sucks is trying to get a good job with just a B.A. or M.A. in liberal arts.

I certainly hope so. Just wonder what I'll do in the decade or two it takes me to get a Ph.D. Are there any jobs in particular that look attractive on a prospective history professor's resume?

 

[H4run]

I'm probably a godawful reader, and possibly a stupid one at that, but is your argument basically that history is useful because it enables us to be more rational, understanding, and skeptical? I think I get what you're saying, but I don't know how to properly explain it.

Of course, even if history's valuable, there's still the depressing and terrifying fact that the market for history professors has a large supply and a negligibly small demand. I'm afraid I'd spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and permanently lose years and years of my life on the road to a doctorate, only to find no job openings. Do you have any advice or comments on getting a job as a history professor?

Then the question should be "how can I make money with history degree?" or "can I get a job easily with history degree?" this is the question that I ask myself when I'm in highschool as I want to take philosophy as my major.

I think it will be hard for me to get a job, so I seek something in between, I can dig the knowledge about human and yet I can also have a honest income, then I enter psychology.

But my master is worst than both philosophy and history, its more intellectual satisfactory without any clear implementation except if I work as NGO, lecturer or I write a book.

But earning and job vacancy is not the parameter to measure something is useful or not, a degree or job that can give u lots of money doesn't mean it more useful for peoples.

 

[Plotinus]

There's thousands of English speaking colleges and community colleges that could use a doctor who got his Ph.D in a decent university. Once you got that you're set.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. There are far more people with PhDs than there are positions for them. Anyone doing a PhD in the humanities in the belief that it will make it easier to get a job is quite deluded. It will make it easier to get a job in academia, yes, but it will still be incredibly difficult to get one (unless your PhD is from a university that is much better than merely decent); and it is harder to get an academic job with a PhD than it is to get a non-academic job without a PhD.

As for getting a non-academic job with a PhD, that's the hardest of all, because non-academic employers regard a PhD as a vocational training for an academic career alone. And they also know nothing about the academic job market and think that anyone with a PhD is likely to become an Oxford don at the drop of a hat, so they won't hire them.

This isn't to say that one shouldn't do a PhD. If that's what you want to do, then do, and don't let people put you off. Just don't do it for the job prospects.

 

[LightSpectra]

Respectfully, I think that attitude is somewhat misconceived. I have a handful of friends that got their doctorates from Ivy League universities and are lamenting that all of the jobs on the market are crap. That bemused me, since I also have a handful of friends who just got their doctorates from middle-tier universities (Steubenville, Catholic University of America, Mt. St. Mary's, etc.) and were instantly employed thereafter in respectable positions at community colleges, or junior faculty at other middle-tier universities. I think the problem is that some peoples' expectations are way too high.

 

[H4run]

I think both can be true depend on the region that you living, peoples in other region can have a different perspective about things also is not closed a possibility about PHD.

Maybe in England is as Plotinus said and in US is as LS said. This is a good input I must say, as I consider to continue until PHD myself and still considering.

 

[ParkCungHee]

CUNY at least is always hiring adjuncts. They're also always firing adjuncts.

Since this is a relatively on topic thread, and there are some PhD holders, I guess this is the best place to ask.

I've recently become disabled which severely cuts into my work options. I can do non-physical labor but require frequent breaks and a relatively flexible schedule. Is it possible to get hired at a community college or something while only being able to do one class a semester?

 

[Absolution]

Or even visiting a museum? Being questioned by your child as to why something is? Deciding wo to vote for? I could go on.

What if you're taking a history class?

Or making conversation.

These are all matters of interest.
If you are interested in history you are more likely to take history classes, have a conversation about history, or visiting a museum.
This is for you leisure time, like literature.
How is literature useful?
It isn't, but it is part of the "culture", and people are interested in it.

example : History is determine to decide your support and vote for a president that is pro Israel government or not pro Israel government, or not to support any of it at all.

To make a fair judgement or treatment about someone ideology, religious believe, etc so you don't act upon prejudgement or paranoid attitude hence from your poor history knowledge or your wrong understanding about their history.

Even to understand most of knowledge you sometime need to know the history about this certain knowledge, so you can get a better grasp understanding about it.

Your character and your perspective that make you who you are is a result on how you understand and believe what happen in the past that make you what you are now in present and what you aim in the future.

And arguably most public miss perception, violent, and civilization clash also results on wrong understanding of history, or manipulation toward history or how the authority dictate their story as history.

A problem between Chinese peoples, Korean with Japanese, the sentiment and all that stuff also regarding on how difference they see history. And you can add another example, which are many.

So history is not just good story that is not right at all you try to degrade it too much, then what is the difference between "Man and super man" novel by Bernard Shaw which I consider funny and nice with historical book? if it the same, tell me how is it the same?

History is an important part that shape ideology or way of life that is why it useful.

In fact, we need more historian, a good honest apolitic and fair historian.

There is a difference between the narrow and minimal knowledge of history you need as a normal man who votes, to a real knowledge in history.


For example, the knowledge I need as a citizen in order to vote in Israel is very minimal.
Just a little about the founders of the state and Zionist activists, some more the Holocaust, a little about the biggest political events in Israel in the last 30 years, and about wars between Israel and neighboring Arab states. That's it.
Of all the global history, this is what I need in order to form my political view.
(Of course I'm not like that, but this is my choice, and most people are more like what I mentioned above)

If you want to be a visionary you will need some more, but I don't believe you'll need anything earlier than WWI, and even in those 100 years, you'll only need to know about the Middle East/Europe/USA.
Because the rest didn't affect you at all today (from Israeli point of view, as an example..)
(It technically did affect you because one thing led to another, but I'm talking about ideology and politics)

And of course it is not only in Israel.
I can't claim to know it for sure, but it doesn't seem to me that an American needs to know much as well.
Very little about the existence of pre-columbians, very little about the colonialism / early USA, and more about post civil war America (including recent Europe history - WWs and cold war).
What else is needed for a regular American citizen?

I'm not talking about people who have interest in history.

Deep history is not being taught in order to make the world a better place.
It has cultural or national motives.
And it is also part of men's curiosity, and pride - to discover more and more.
People who are interested in history can see it as more than that, and it is understandable.
But most people doesn't have to know much history.

 

[Plotinus]

Respectfully, I think that attitude is somewhat misconceived. I have a handful of friends that got their doctorates from Ivy League universities and are lamenting that all of the jobs on the market are crap. That bemused me, since I also have a handful of friends who just got their doctorates from middle-tier universities (Steubenville, Catholic University of America, Mt. St. Mary's, etc.) and were instantly employed thereafter in respectable positions at community colleges, or junior faculty at other middle-tier universities. I think the problem is that some peoples' expectations are way too high.

I think both can be true depend on the region that you living, peoples in other region can have a different perspective about things also is not closed a possibility about PHD.

Maybe in England is as Plotinus said and in US is as LS said. This is a good input I must say, as I consider to continue until PHD myself and still considering.

There is some truth to what haroon says here. In the US, there is the adjunct system, which doesn't exist in the UK. It means that in the US a person with a PhD usually has a decent chance of getting at least some teaching work, even if it's teaching large unmotivated classes for minuscule pay on a temporary contract. In Britain you don't have that opportunity.

It also makes a big difference what area you specialise in. There are some subjects that are always in demand and others that aren't. So one must be wary of generalisations.

Still, I can only go by my own experiences and those of people I know. I have one friend who's currently on a temporary research contract here in Oxford, after getting his PhD from Harvard, who has been driven almost to despair trying to find a position in either the US or the UK. He's got one now (in eastern Europe), but it was very hard for him.

Maybe the truth is somewhere between my view and LightSpectra's. At any rate I'd advise anyone thinking about this to look into it very carefully, and focus on people's experiences in the particular field they're interested in.

 

[Masada]

For example, the knowledge I need as a citizen in order to vote in Israel is very minimal.

Presumably you just need citizenship and to fill out a form. Making an informed vote is another matter entirely.

 

[Lord Baal]

Presumably you just need citizenship and to fill out a form. Making an informed vote is another matter entirely.

In Israel? Military service too. At least, that's how it was when me familia still lived there.

 

[Masada]

Enlightened democracy here we come!

 

[H4run]

There is a difference between the narrow and minimal knowledge of history you need as a normal man who votes, to a real knowledge in history.


For example, the knowledge I need as a citizen in order to vote in Israel is very minimal.
Just a little about the founders of the state and Zionist activists, some more the Holocaust, a little about the biggest political events in Israel in the last 30 years, and about wars between Israel and neighboring Arab states. That's it.
Of all the global history, this is what I need in order to form my political view.
(Of course I'm not like that, but this is my choice, and most people are more like what I mentioned above)

If you want to be a visionary you will need some more, but I don't believe you'll need anything earlier than WWI, and even in those 100 years, you'll only need to know about the Middle East/Europe/USA.
Because the rest didn't affect you at all today (from Israeli point of view, as an example..)
(It technically did affect you because one thing led to another, but I'm talking about ideology and politics)

And of course it is not only in Israel.
I can't claim to know it for sure, but it doesn't seem to me that an American needs to know much as well.
Very little about the existence of pre-columbians, very little about the colonialism / early USA, and more about post civil war America (including recent Europe history - WWs and cold war).
What else is needed for a regular American citizen?

I'm not talking about people who have interest in history.

Deep history is not being taught in order to make the world a better place.
It has cultural or national motives.
And it is also part of men's curiosity, and pride - to discover more and more.
People who are interested in history can see it as more than that, and it is understandable.
But most people doesn't have to know much history.

I'm not going to make this topic out of topic by expressing my disagreement prior your comment about the ideally basic knowledge that one must had to vote in Israel. As I already read your comment in other discussion topic regarding your view on Israel, as you say the Jews migrate to Palestine and found that land as a wide empty land and they settle there peacefully and they even confuse "where the heck are those Palestinian" if I'm not mistaken you were debating with Tailesskanguru and other in that thread, again it just show me the minimize, narrow, knowledge and history can be very misleading and use for self or group act justification. But if we talk about that, it will be a long debate, lets not make Israel and their Zionist as an example better to avoid that subject.

I can show many example or discourse that is depend on History, because History is important for one to perform a correct logic, dialectic, analysis or syllogistic. Just mention me which Politic, economy, military, philosophy or other discourse that are independent from history?

Hutington reach his postulate (which one can agree or disagree) upon on past and current history analysis. Tofler get the idea of the third wave also upon on history analysis on pre Industrial techno sphere, info sphere, economic sphere and etc on pre Industrial, Industrial and modern history analysis.

This is only at the terms how history are need for other discourse. So the different perspective of history, is not just serve the different of one perception about what happen at the past, but it also effect on how one think what really happen in present and what will they do in the future. That mean it effect so much.

The misconception of history can result genocide, war and discrimination of group or race even. Like the genocide of Rwanda, Serbia tragedy or I can try to argue the genocide of Jew by Nazi can also seen as misconception of Arian and Jew relation in the span of history, as Hitler in Mein Campf address the one that trigger and have a major impact regarding to his action and perception was his history teacher in highschool, like how Max I Dimont picture the relation between Arian and the Jews were an endless rivalry since the time of Roman Hellenist.

How about if Hitler see history differently, or took a different class and meet other history teacher that have a different view on history, I think it can also effect him differently.

 

[Lord Baal]

Enlightened democracy here we come!

Hey, if everyone in this country had to fight in Afghanistan, they might stop voting for the idiots that sent us to war there.

 

[Absolution]

Presumably you just need citizenship and to fill out a form. Making an informed vote is another matter entirely.

You don't need any knowledge about Macedonian Greece, medieval China, colonization in Africa, or Cuban socialism in order to form an intelligent political view in Israel.
Do you?
What you do need is considered a very a minimal knowledge in terms of global history. Anywhere around the world.
Just the last 120+ years of your own people and things that related to them.
Usually nothing more is needed.

In Israel? Military service too. At least, that's how it was when me familia still lived there.

Military service?
People who didn't serve in the army can vote.

I'm not going to make this topic out of topic by expressing my disagreement prior your comment about the ideally basic knowledge that one must had to vote in Israel. As I already read your comment in other discussion topic regarding your view on Israel, as you say the Jews migrate to Palestine and found that land as a wide empty land and they settle there peacefully and they even confuse "where the heck are those Palestinian" if I'm not mistaken you were debating with Tailesskanguru and other in that thread, again it just show me the minimize, narrow, knowledge and history can be very misleading and use for self or group act justification. But if we talk about that, it will be a long debate, lets not make Israel and their Zionist as an example better to avoid that subject.

I did say that in order to form a political view you need to know about the early Zionism.
Not much, but to know the general process.

And in fact, I object this whole issue of justifying lands.
Lands are changing hands, and this is history at its best.
I don't think we have special "rights" on this land.
No one has.
We simply don't need rights in order to control a territory.
We managed to found a state.
And in 400 years from now, I believe we won't control it. At least not all of it.
We would be able to rebel, but we won't have any special "right".

I can show many example or discourse that is depend on History, because History is important for one to perform a correct logic, dialectic, analysis or syllogistic. Just mention me which Politic, economy, military, philosophy or other discourse that are independent from history?

They aren't independent from history, but the amount of historical knowledge needed is nothing compared to the long global history.
What is the importance of the ancient Mesopotamian history?
Full Mesoamerican history?
Nomadic Turks history?
Hellenistic history?
Late Byzantine history?
Pre-Qing Chinese history?
How are these important to anyone in the world?

Hutington reach his postulate (which one can agree or disagree) upon on past and current history analysis. Tofler get the idea of the third wave also upon on history analysis on pre Industrial techno sphere, info sphere, economic sphere and etc on pre Industrial, Industrial and modern history analysis.

This is only at the terms how history are need for other discourse. So the different perspective of history, is not just serve the different of one perception about what happen at the past, but it also effect on how one think what really happen in present and what will they do in the future. That mean it effect so much.

Again, only recent decades / century in specific areas is what a man needs.

The misconception of history can result genocide, war and discrimination of group or race even. Like the genocide of Rwanda, Serbia tragedy or I can try to argue the genocide of Jew by Nazi can also seen as misconception of Arian and Jew relation in the span of history, as Hitler in Mein Campf address the one that trigger and have a major impact regarding to his action and perception was his history teacher in highschool, like how Max I Dimont picture the relation between Arian and the Jews were an endless rivalry since the time of Roman Hellenist.
How about if Hitler see history differently, or took a different class and meet other history teacher that have a different view on history, I think it can also effect him differently.

The problem with Hitler was not the misunderstood history.
He considered Jews to be a cursed race since the dawn of history.
The problem was racism, not false historical knowledge.
Even among people with correct historical knowledge, the antisemitism flourished in 19th century Europe.

Teaching him true history is not the way to prevent racism.
The way to prevent racism is to educate for anti-racism.

 

[The Strategos]

CUNY at least is always hiring adjuncts. They're also always firing adjuncts.

Since this is a relatively on topic thread, and there are some PhD holders, I guess this is the best place to ask.

I've recently become disabled which severely cuts into my work options. I can do non-physical labor but require frequent breaks and a relatively flexible schedule. Is it possible to get hired at a community college or something while only being able to do one class a semester?

Assuming you have the qualifications and a school in the area needs your area, yes. I know several people who had at one point or another taught one or two classes a semester to supplement their income. Supplement being the key word here, the range seems to be $1,000-$2,000 USD per course per semester from talking around. Depending on the subject and area of the country you are in, it might be more or less of course (check http://www.adjunctproject.com/us/ for standard pay per course for most US schools)

There is some truth to what haroon says here. In the US, there is the adjunct system, which doesn't exist in the UK. It means that in the US a person with a PhD usually has a decent chance of getting at least some teaching work, even if it's teaching large unmotivated classes for minuscule pay on a temporary contract. In Britain you don't have that opportunity.

It also makes a big difference what area you specialise in. There are some subjects that are always in demand and others that aren't. So one must be wary of generalisations.

Still, I can only go by my own experiences and those of people I know. I have one friend who's currently on a temporary research contract here in Oxford, after getting his PhD from Harvard, who has been driven almost to despair trying to find a position in either the US or the UK. He's got one now (in eastern Europe), but it was very hard for him.

Maybe the truth is somewhere between my view and LightSpectra's. At any rate I'd advise anyone thinking about this to look into it very carefully, and focus on people's experiences in the particular field they're interested in.

Your experiences are closer to the "average" PhD in history in North America than LightSpectra's (though LightSpectra's anecdotes do highlight that it is paradoxically almost better to graduate from a mid-tier, with a strong publishing record R1s will want you while community colleges and liberal arts colleges still think you are within their reach. Ivy's however, are generally assumed to only want R1 jobs and will bolt from a lesser college if given a chance, so why waste time hiring them only to see them leave in a year or two).

The American Historical Association has been pushing the "crisis" for years at the highest level. If people are considering PhD's in history you must check out the latest report from the AHA found here. Essentially, there are still almost 200 more PhD holders graduating than jobs opening in academics, and depending upon your concentration you will be competing for these jobs with 60-100 applicants on average. 10 Years after beginning a PhD only 30% of people who began with you will have a tenure track job (and tenure track is important because otherwise you will be locked into making slightly over $40k a year on a semester or year contract while your new colleague will start out at around $50k and eventually hope to hit $80k with job security).

For these reasons, I* strongly urge anyone thinking of grad school to not go unless the school is giving you a free ride. Job prospects are just too low to justify going into debt and the relatively low salaries (remember you are losing money during your "prime" earning years) make it harder to pay back debt.

*This comes from a fully funded PhD (history of religion) student in year 4 and hopes to be done in year 5.

 

[Masada]

Just the last 120+ years of your own people and things that related to them.
Usually nothing more is needed.

Going by Israeli politics that isn't essential or even desirable.

 

[Absolution]

Going by Israeli politics that isn't essential or even desirable.

I know, but this sentence didn't refer only to Israel.