IHE: Humanities Graduate Education is Shrinking

[Hibush]

Among the skills most valued by employers of all kinds is the ability to communicate effectively. That is valued for organizational leaders, developers annotating their code, marketing specialists and all manner of other roles.

Effective communication is greatly aided by understanding your audience's cultural context and how the nuances of language affect how they perceive what you are saying, writing, drawing or singing. Humanists master that sort of thing in a way that others may not even be able to imagine.

Alone, there are still a lot of jobs in outreach of all kinds (including marketing, advertising and corporate communications.) Combining that expertise with something else is a powerful combination*.

However, humanists often communicate to others reduces employability. And it is highly ironic that the very skills I mentioned in the previous paragraph fail so badly. These cultural norms among humanities PhD students are red flags to employers:

• Can't get to the point. Humanities PhDs routinely use lots of strange words, long sentences and obscure references.
• Can't make a deadline. Humanities PhDs take years longer than other fields.
• Can't work in a team. PhD mentors rarely meet witheir graduate students or tie their own research with that of their graduate students. There are no weekly meetings to coordinate and share new information.
• Can't contextualize their situation. Humanities PhDs say that the only thing they can do is teach their narrow field.
• Can't adjust to their audience. Humanities conference goers insist on reading their talks.

The missed opportunity creates a lot of pain. There is no reason why any of these things should be true of a well-trained graduate student. Where do these norms persist and why?

*I was looking at an article about prominent people who had majored in humanities. Obviously there will be a lot of selection bias. But it was worse than I thought. One tech CEO was touted as having majored in area studies. Wow. But it turns out they had a second major...mechanical engineering...from MIT. That success story may show how humanities training adds value to experise in something else. But it says nothing about the career prosepects of typical humanities graduate students.

[Wahoo Redux]

However, humanists often communicate to others reduces employability. And it is highly ironic that the very skills I mentioned in the previous paragraph fail so badly. These cultural norms among humanities PhD students are red flags to employers:

• Can't get to the point. Humanities PhDs routinely use lots of strange words, long sentences and obscure references.
• Can't make a deadline. Humanities PhDs take years longer than other fields.
• Can't work in a team. PhD mentors rarely meet witheir graduate students or tie their own research with that of their graduate students. There are no weekly meetings to coordinate and share new information.
• Can't contextualize their situation. Humanities PhDs say that the only thing they can do is teach their narrow field.
• Can't adjust to their audience. Humanities conference goers insist on reading their talks.

The missed opportunity creates a lot of pain. There is no reason why any of these things should be true of a well-trained graduate student. Where do these norms persist and why?

Several of my English Ph.D. cohort now work outside of academia.  They have successful careers.

I have also seen a number of extemporaneous discussions of research, and have delivered at least one myself, at humanities' conferences.  Part of the reason we read our papers is because these are articles in process of eventually becoming publishable; we go to our conferences for feedback on our writing.

Part of our long sentences comes from the ability to write fluidly and about complex ideas.  I have read a fair amount of engineering reports as a writing center trainer----and engineers tend to write terribly.

Do you have any sort of research or even anecdotal evidence to back up what you have posted above?

[financeguy]

First off, a well known actress outside an academic environment being hired in a drama program is very common. (Thinking of USC.) Also, hiring anyone who can fundraise is common no matter how qualified so Rashad is not contrary to my statements. Same with others with professional accomplishments in a given field being hired to teach that specific professional field. If someone who was the worlds leading stem cell researcher wanted to use his "transferable" skills to lead the drama department at a community college, he'd be told to go get the traditionally sought credentials in that field. (Acting MFA or significant credits, etc.) It doesn't even need to be "that different" to be a no-go in the academy. Someone has the professional terminal degree and applies for a research based role or vice versa? Someone's specific research area was slightly off or in a slightly different subfield? Often these are seen as "not relevant."

I've been on the other hiring end in the private sector. Someone's academic background is simply not that important, especially once they've been out for even a brief period of time. A humanities Ph.D. wouldn't lead to automatic negativity but it would certainly raise questions. As in other contexts, a confused or uncertain buyer is a non-buyer. What was this person doing? Do they have mommy and daddy's money? If so, are they serious about our field? Why did they do this? Do they really want our position or were they simply not able to do what they wish? Will they leave our opportunity if something comes up in their given field? None of these will be the "right" conclusion but they will be raised if you haven't answered beforehand.

There are two ways to view transferable skills, one of which comes of as clueless and entitled and the other of which comes off as realistic and diverse. The former views transferable skills as "substitute skills" that will get them a back door to a role without the traditionally desired credentials of a given field. This strategy is wrong, wrong, wrong in a number of ways. If you want to apply to Morgan Stanley's training program or an associate role at McKinsey or a commercial real estate role at CBRE, you'll be much better off if you make an effort to have the credentials someone has that's coming through the front door, with a potential edge from whatever your previous background is.

Once you've done the above, you can often get a "bonus" for your previous background once there. The entry level role in banking could more quickly lead to management based on some of the transferable skills attained previously, but those would not necessarily succeed as substitute skills to get the role in the first place. I've spoken to many who said their previous backgrounds helped in their careers at some point down the track, but not necessarily in getting the first role. Think of your humanities Ph.D. as a post dated check. It has value, just not today in that specific context.

You are also not the only person who believes they have transferable skills. Those with military experience often need to make this case when seeking initial civilian employment. There are many departments in companies with task forces to hire veterans specifically because some of those skills are desired by employers. There is no such task force I'm aware of in the vast majority of fields to recruit ex academics, although the FBI does consider "academic" one of the sought after backgrounds for their Special Agent training program. It's not that there's "no" market, just that many academics overvalue the market for their skills. If you take the post-dated check analogy and know that what you have has value, but that this will be realized after meeting the specific requirements of a role rather than as a substitution for those requirements, you'll be in a very good position.

[ciao_yall]

There are two ways to view transferable skills, one of which comes of as clueless and entitled and the other of which comes off as realistic and diverse. The former views transferable skills as "substitute skills" that will get them a back door to a role without the traditionally desired credentials of a given field. This strategy is wrong, wrong, wrong in a number of ways. If you want to apply to Morgan Stanley's training program or an associate role at McKinsey or a commercial real estate role at CBRE, you'll be much better off if you make an effort to have the credentials someone has that's coming through the front door, with a potential edge from whatever your previous background is.

Once you've done the above, you can often get a "bonus" for your previous background once there. The entry level role in banking could more quickly lead to management based on some of the transferable skills attained previously, but those would not necessarily succeed as substitute skills to get the role in the first place. I've spoken to many who said their previous backgrounds helped in their careers at some point down the track, but not necessarily in getting the first role. Think of your humanities Ph.D. as a post dated check. It has value, just not today in that specific context.

Nobody is saying that, simply because one has a PhD in history they don't need to get a broker's license or other credential. Puh-leeze.

All those coding boot camps were filled with college graduates who had the literacy, numeracy, group project and lab skills to learn computer programming. Did they "waste" their college tuition? Of course not. Without those general skills that one gets in college, they would not have made it through coding boot camp.

Few, if any people's careers are linked to their undergraduate major. My sister majored in Anthropology, taught for Teach For America and now is a pediatrician. Those experiences helped make her a good physician... but yeah, Gross Anatomy was also needed.

[Wahoo Redux]

You are also not the only person who believes they have transferable skills. 

It's not that there's "no" market, just that many academics overvalue the market for their skills.

These are always the strawman arguments.

I've never known anyone to say either of these things.

[Anon1787]

All those coding boot camps were filled with college graduates who had the literacy, numeracy, group project and lab skills to learn computer programming. Did they "waste" their college tuition? Of course not. Without those general skills that one gets in college, they would not have made it through coding boot camp.

Are there good studies that confirm that all those coding boot camps were filled with college graduates who would not have been able to succeed in those coding boot camps without a college degree? (Even if a college degree does help to varying degrees, the college curriculum seems rather bloated for those who are focused on job training.)

[ciao_yall]

All those coding boot camps were filled with college graduates who had the literacy, numeracy, group project and lab skills to learn computer programming. Did they "waste" their college tuition? Of course not. Without those general skills that one gets in college, they would not have made it through coding boot camp.

Are there good studies that confirm that all those coding boot camps were filled with college graduates who would not have been able to succeed in those coding boot camps without a college degree? (Even if a college degree does help to varying degrees, the college curriculum seems rather bloated for those who are focused on job training.)

The statistics show that the successful completers of coding boot camps had college degrees. TLTG (Too lazy to Google.)

[kaysixteen]

Wahoo, your first bullet point is debatable, and perhaps irrelevant to the problem, but the rest of your points are legitimate... but to a large extent so-what-y.  All these things are good things, very important for serious scholarship in humanities (the parts about deadline-irrelevance is tied to the fact that humanities grad students, and then working scholars, do not have PIs and thus have to develop and cultivate much more independence of thought and action than strict 'team players' in STEM-- this is of course one of the reasons why humanists who have developed such a skill and ethos may very well just not jibe with the b-school buzzword-bloviating 'team players' so valued in many businesses and business circles).

[financeguy]

ciao_yall, I haven't heard anyone so delusional to think they didn't need a credential that was a legal requirement of the position such as a license, although I've met people that have done so little research they didn't even know what those requirements are. (This is particularly the case with byzantine FINRA and SEC requirements which are sometimes difficult to understand.)

What I'm talking about is the person that thinks that they will bypass industry norms and requirements that are not legally mandated such as the general process of becoming an associate in i-banking. This generally involves a top-tier MBA with a summer analyst role at the bank one wishes to work at afterword, in a major world city such as New York or London. I can't tell how many people have though they were going to "do it their own way." None of them secured an investment banking role.

I spoke to someone who said he wants to be a portfolio manager. I let him know the standard path to that highly competitive field and he said he needs to "focus on being able to market his story" to those who can get him these roles. When I recommended he focus on the traditionally desired qualifications of the field, he looked at me like I was insane and continued to regurgitate how his qualifications would be advantageous in that role. Needless to say, he has yet to succeed in getting an institution to hire him to manage millions of dollars based on his perceived "x factor." (This particular person actually used that phrase!)

Don't even get me started on people who think their law degree is a "catch all" to bypass credentials in other areas. This is the one field that easily overvalues its own relevance outside the discipline way more than any academic credential. I've asked many lawyers who wished to enter various roles of finance about their plans, almost all of whom had the phrase "use their law degree" somewhere in the description. Possible for trust administration or wealth management? Sure. Trading? Not so much.

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo, your first bullet point is debatable,

I think you mean Hibush.  Your post was spot-on.

@Financeguy: what does anything you just posted have to do with the humanities?

[financeguy]

It has to do with humanities fields and the belief that they don't need to necessarily produce graduate students employable in their field of study because they have "transferable skills." We all know this is simply an excuse not to give the axe to any program that isn't placing most of its graduates. I don't get a ton of people trying to come from computer programming or medicine to enter finance. I do hear from a ton of people with humanities degrees who wish to do so.

[Hibush]

Wahoo, your first bullet point is debatable,

I think you mean Hibush.  Your post was spot-on.

Wahoo and Kaysixteen were both commenting on my bullet points.

I've tried to express employers' potential interpretations of things academic humanists commonly say about themselves.

I think the conclusions are not generally true, and that a communication issue is limiting the career success of many humanities PhDs.

My humanities colleagues on the other end of campus don't do any of the things on the list, so I know it doesn't have to be true.

[Ruralguy]

I don't think Hibush is saying that the humanities don't have some legitimate reasons for doing the things listed. The claim is that (some) others perceive these "features" as "bugs."  Some of these bugs are not unique to the humanities.

[jimbogumbo]

someone who got an Oscar in documentary directing ...will not be hired as the dean of arts and sciences, assistant professor of

financeguy: I was reacting to the above. There are plenty of smaller colleges where film and performing arts are valued highly. I can easily see such an alum hired to be the chief academic officer if that person can generate funding and donations.

[Wahoo Redux]

It has to do with humanities fields and the belief that they don't need to necessarily produce graduate students employable in their field of study because they have "transferable skills." We all know this is simply an excuse not to give the axe to any program that isn't placing most of its graduates. I don't get a ton of people trying to come from computer programming or medicine to enter finance. I do hear from a ton of people with humanities degrees who wish to do so.

Can you prove any of that?

We have already looked at the raw stats for job placement for humanities majors.  You have bad information.