No, really. What is a historian to do? Ever since I changed my major as an undergrad from music to history, just about any time someone asks me what I'm studying and I tell them, they end up saying, "So...you're going to teach?" This probably happens 99 times out of a hundred, and no, I'm not exaggerating. If I had a dollar for every time someone has said that to me, I could probably buy myself that new laptop I so desperately need. The general public seems to assume that if someone is going into history, the only occupation open to that individual is teaching. In fact, many history majors, and many people with history degrees mistakenly think the same thing.
As I said in my last post, when I came to Southeast Missouri State, I had no idea what Public History is. I did know that some historians work at museums and historic sites, but I really didn't know anything more than that. In the last two years here, studying in a department with an excellent public history program, and finally deciding to get a certificate in Heritage Education through said program, I have learned a lot about the opportunities open to public historians. However, I have learned more through this week's readings about specific possibilities than in the last two years combined.
While reading through the various essays for this week's assignment (again, taken from the Gardner and LaPaglia text), I kept thinking, "How is it that I have gotten to the end of my Master's program, and am just now learning of all these possibilities!?" I mean, sure, on some level, I knew each option existed, but kind of in the same way that I know travel to the moon is possible: people do it, but not people like me. The more I read, the more I thought about what a shame it is that so few people- whether currently studying history or already possessing a degree- know about all of the options out there. In fact, I began to think that this really should somehow be fit into the college curriculum for history majors. Perhaps even just existing in booklet form with a title such as "What To Do With A Degree In History," and being handed out to graduating Seniors would suffice. But somehow, it's a small travesty that so few people with history degrees know their options. When I was a Senior at Ouachita Baptist University, as part of the CORE curriculum, every Senior had to take a "Senior Seminar" with other Seniors in their school, which for me, was social sciences. For one hour each week, Senior history, psychology, political science, and sociology majors would meet and discuss topics relating to being a professional in the social sciences. Perhaps one of those class periods could have been about specific options for each of those majors- options other than those "obvious" options everyone seems to think about. There was way too much material in this week's reading to talk about here, so I will stick to talking about the four occupations I found most surprising and interesting:
So, what are these "other" options? The first is that of "administrator." Michael J. Devine wrote this essay, entitled, "Administrators: Students of History and Practitioners of the Art of Management. Devine spends a lot of time persuasively arguing why historians, and not business people, should be placed in positions of administration at museums and historic sites. He also gives a nod to the "feud" between academic and public history by retelling a story about a historian who worked at the Smithsonian for years and then went back to the university where he got his Ph.D. to give a talk to the graduate students about his work, of which he was very proud. One of his former professors approached him afterwards, saying what a pity it was that he couldn't get a teaching job, because he would have made such a good historian- implying that working for the Smithsonian does not count as being a historian! How absolutely ridiculous this is. Devine's main point is that historical institutions absolutely must have a historian as their chief administrators, because only historians can really understand what is important. Someone with an M.B.A. and no history background will not. It's the same with many administrative roles, really- most school principals and superintendents have teaching degrees, hospitals often employ M.D.s in administrative positions, etc. For an administrator to do his or her job well, he or she must not only be a good delegator, mediator, decision maker, and budget maker, but he or she must also be very familiar with whatever it is in which the institution specializes. Otherwise, it will not work as it should.
The second was highly interesting to me: independent contractor. I guess I knew they existed, but I'd never thought of it before. Jannelle Warren-Findley discusses this option in her essay, "Contract Historians and Consultants." She talks of the ups and downs of such a career choice, and why she eventually chose another path. After reading this essay, I think perhaps this might be something I could happily do as an alternative to teaching. Of course, one of the pitfalls to this is having to figure out how to run your own business, but that is true with many career choices. Some of the benefits though include being able to use and develop different skill sets, travel (she once spent three weeks in Asia as part of her job), and work independently. While challenging, this would be a great option, and could potentially be great fun.
The occupation of documentary editor was option number three. Written by Candace Falk, "Documentary Editors: Not As Boring As It Sounds," discusses an aspect of documentary making I had never before considered. She talks about how it often takes decades of dedicated research on a single topic to create a documentary, and actually refers to it in terms of "psychosis," saying that a documentary editor has to be almost obsessed with his or her topic to do it well. One thing I didn't realize is that for many documentary editors, they spend years going through unpublished, and often uncatalogued primary sources. In Falk's case, she went through more than 20,000 letters, writings, and other documents associated with Emma Goldman (now there's a person I'd love to write a blog post about!). Of course, with something like this, much more is accomplished than simply a documentary at the end of the project. Thanks to Falk and her team, thousands of microfilmed primary sources regarding Emma Goldman now exist which did not before. This will no doubt be a significant resource for many researchers for years to come. One of the later essays in this week's reading, "Film And Media Producers: Taking History Off The Page And Putting It On The Screen," by Nina Gilden Seavey was also about documentary filmmaking, and discussed some additional issues dealing with this (and related) chosen occupation.
Surprising occupation number four is discussed in Sylvia K. Kraemer's essay, "Policy Advisors: Historians And Making Policy." Kraemer was involved in helping the Clinton Administration develop its space policies. Of course, this kind of position is much harder to obtain than the others I have discussed, but regardless, it is an interesting place for a historian to land. She addresses the issue of "objectivity" concerning historians involved in policy-making, in that while our profession makes complete and true objectivity more or less impossible (as she put it, historians do not really approach topics with a "tabula rasa," rather we have already formed some biases and have specific-rather than general- questions in mind), historians are especially able to search out the evidence and counter-evidence concerning these questions, and then utilize the information in a way which is conducive to creating solid policy. Essentially, Kraemer argues that one of the biggest benefits to having historians as a part of a policy-making team is that we make excellent decision makers based on empirical evidence. This was something I had not considered, but is absolutely true- historians do indeed have a fantastic set of skills to help with creating policy, and not just in the government, either. There are plenty of corporate applications for this as well.
To sum it all up, there are far more career opportunities for historians than even many of us know. I do believe it would behoove us to figure out a way to educate history majors in these possibilities before they end up educated and out of work, or working a minimum-wage job that anyone without a high school diploma could do. Perhaps, it's time for a change.
As I said in my last post, when I came to Southeast Missouri State, I had no idea what Public History is. I did know that some historians work at museums and historic sites, but I really didn't know anything more than that. In the last two years here, studying in a department with an excellent public history program, and finally deciding to get a certificate in Heritage Education through said program, I have learned a lot about the opportunities open to public historians. However, I have learned more through this week's readings about specific possibilities than in the last two years combined.
While reading through the various essays for this week's assignment (again, taken from the Gardner and LaPaglia text), I kept thinking, "How is it that I have gotten to the end of my Master's program, and am just now learning of all these possibilities!?" I mean, sure, on some level, I knew each option existed, but kind of in the same way that I know travel to the moon is possible: people do it, but not people like me. The more I read, the more I thought about what a shame it is that so few people- whether currently studying history or already possessing a degree- know about all of the options out there. In fact, I began to think that this really should somehow be fit into the college curriculum for history majors. Perhaps even just existing in booklet form with a title such as "What To Do With A Degree In History," and being handed out to graduating Seniors would suffice. But somehow, it's a small travesty that so few people with history degrees know their options. When I was a Senior at Ouachita Baptist University, as part of the CORE curriculum, every Senior had to take a "Senior Seminar" with other Seniors in their school, which for me, was social sciences. For one hour each week, Senior history, psychology, political science, and sociology majors would meet and discuss topics relating to being a professional in the social sciences. Perhaps one of those class periods could have been about specific options for each of those majors- options other than those "obvious" options everyone seems to think about. There was way too much material in this week's reading to talk about here, so I will stick to talking about the four occupations I found most surprising and interesting:
So, what are these "other" options? The first is that of "administrator." Michael J. Devine wrote this essay, entitled, "Administrators: Students of History and Practitioners of the Art of Management. Devine spends a lot of time persuasively arguing why historians, and not business people, should be placed in positions of administration at museums and historic sites. He also gives a nod to the "feud" between academic and public history by retelling a story about a historian who worked at the Smithsonian for years and then went back to the university where he got his Ph.D. to give a talk to the graduate students about his work, of which he was very proud. One of his former professors approached him afterwards, saying what a pity it was that he couldn't get a teaching job, because he would have made such a good historian- implying that working for the Smithsonian does not count as being a historian! How absolutely ridiculous this is. Devine's main point is that historical institutions absolutely must have a historian as their chief administrators, because only historians can really understand what is important. Someone with an M.B.A. and no history background will not. It's the same with many administrative roles, really- most school principals and superintendents have teaching degrees, hospitals often employ M.D.s in administrative positions, etc. For an administrator to do his or her job well, he or she must not only be a good delegator, mediator, decision maker, and budget maker, but he or she must also be very familiar with whatever it is in which the institution specializes. Otherwise, it will not work as it should.
The second was highly interesting to me: independent contractor. I guess I knew they existed, but I'd never thought of it before. Jannelle Warren-Findley discusses this option in her essay, "Contract Historians and Consultants." She talks of the ups and downs of such a career choice, and why she eventually chose another path. After reading this essay, I think perhaps this might be something I could happily do as an alternative to teaching. Of course, one of the pitfalls to this is having to figure out how to run your own business, but that is true with many career choices. Some of the benefits though include being able to use and develop different skill sets, travel (she once spent three weeks in Asia as part of her job), and work independently. While challenging, this would be a great option, and could potentially be great fun.
The occupation of documentary editor was option number three. Written by Candace Falk, "Documentary Editors: Not As Boring As It Sounds," discusses an aspect of documentary making I had never before considered. She talks about how it often takes decades of dedicated research on a single topic to create a documentary, and actually refers to it in terms of "psychosis," saying that a documentary editor has to be almost obsessed with his or her topic to do it well. One thing I didn't realize is that for many documentary editors, they spend years going through unpublished, and often uncatalogued primary sources. In Falk's case, she went through more than 20,000 letters, writings, and other documents associated with Emma Goldman (now there's a person I'd love to write a blog post about!). Of course, with something like this, much more is accomplished than simply a documentary at the end of the project. Thanks to Falk and her team, thousands of microfilmed primary sources regarding Emma Goldman now exist which did not before. This will no doubt be a significant resource for many researchers for years to come. One of the later essays in this week's reading, "Film And Media Producers: Taking History Off The Page And Putting It On The Screen," by Nina Gilden Seavey was also about documentary filmmaking, and discussed some additional issues dealing with this (and related) chosen occupation.
Surprising occupation number four is discussed in Sylvia K. Kraemer's essay, "Policy Advisors: Historians And Making Policy." Kraemer was involved in helping the Clinton Administration develop its space policies. Of course, this kind of position is much harder to obtain than the others I have discussed, but regardless, it is an interesting place for a historian to land. She addresses the issue of "objectivity" concerning historians involved in policy-making, in that while our profession makes complete and true objectivity more or less impossible (as she put it, historians do not really approach topics with a "tabula rasa," rather we have already formed some biases and have specific-rather than general- questions in mind), historians are especially able to search out the evidence and counter-evidence concerning these questions, and then utilize the information in a way which is conducive to creating solid policy. Essentially, Kraemer argues that one of the biggest benefits to having historians as a part of a policy-making team is that we make excellent decision makers based on empirical evidence. This was something I had not considered, but is absolutely true- historians do indeed have a fantastic set of skills to help with creating policy, and not just in the government, either. There are plenty of corporate applications for this as well.
To sum it all up, there are far more career opportunities for historians than even many of us know. I do believe it would behoove us to figure out a way to educate history majors in these possibilities before they end up educated and out of work, or working a minimum-wage job that anyone without a high school diploma could do. Perhaps, it's time for a change.
No comments:
Post a Comment