Crossing the Rubicon We Face
Re-tooling our Profession for the Future
We need a “Mike Rowe” for history.
No, I am not joking. Mike Rowe is a figure that needs very little introduction. Through shows like Dirty Jobs and Returning the Favor, he has spent the past several years introducing the world to hundreds of important careers and industries and the indomitable people working in them – a celebration not only of work, but of a special blend of will, determination, independent thinking, humor, and work ethic that we can all aspire to emulate. Through work ethic scholarships, his foundation has distributed millions to aspiring young individuals eager to take advantage of valuable and often high-paying opportunities that previously stood vacant thanks to the so-called “skills gap.” His succinct and colorful observations about these matters, often repeated in interviews and media appearances, have a ring of truth and common sense that our modern society is starving for, surrounded as we are by significant challenges, information overload, overnight social media sensations, and a never-ending stream of “unprecedented circumstances” described in excruciating detail on the nightly news.
Mike Rowe’s message pierces this constant barrage to suggest there might be a more constructive way to look at the world around us. He points out that the time has come for our country to have a meaningful conversation about the prevailing definition of a “good job.” He makes the case that “job satisfaction” is a dangerous objective, in and of itself – that working towards a “dream job” inevitably involves establishing barriers that can quickly become millstones of regret when things don’t turn out the way we envisioned, and he encourages individuals never to follow their passion, but instead to always bring it with them on their journey, thus de-emphasizing “the job” as the ultimate goal and the pinnacle of perceived happiness to instead focus on working hard, doing our best, and learning how to enjoy life along the way.
This might sound a little far-fetched, but I wonder – how many of us working in higher education first pursued careers in academia because of a “passion?” How many of us have spent significant portions of our working lives striving towards a certain position, institution, tenure, or title only to find out it’s not at all what we expected? If I was a gambling man, I’d say the percentage is fairly steep.
So what, if anything, does all of this have to do with the profession of history?
It is no secret that history, as a discipline, is undergoing a particularly challenging moment. Recent conversations have pointed out the dismal state of the current job market for newly minted history doctorates, offering a variety of proposed fixes and raising the charge of “professional malpractice” for history programs that fail to make changes. Yet, at its core, the current crisis seems to point towards a general unwillingness, or perhaps simply a failure to recognize, that changes are needed in the way we normally operate as a profession. History programs remain geared towards the production of doctorates who will leave their programs, secure a short-term post-graduate appointment or perhaps join the ranks of hard-working, low-paid adjunct instructors carrying a significant share of undergraduate teaching, and gradually work their way towards the coveted and extremely limited tenure-track appointments that are the end goals of the traditional academic career trajectory.
This has been the path for generations of scholars, and remains the only professionally acceptable path for many, and yet it now seems to be insufficient. The moment of crisis persists. As Mike Rowe might wonder, why does the traditional professional education of historians seem so profoundly disconnected from the harsh realities of academic life post-graduation? What can history programs do to re-tool themselves, stop the crisis in its tracks, and prepare students for a more secure and dynamic future?
On several recent and forthcoming episodes of my show, The Modern Scholar Podcast, various guests and I have explored what I have come to call the “skills of history” – those crucially important yet easily trained transferrable “soft skills” in demand with every industry the world over and so commonly practiced and delivered in history programs, as a matter of course. These include research, critical thinking, oral communication, and writing, and while these skills can certainly be acquired in a variety of different venues, they are professionally mandatory within the discipline of history and are thus a central part of traditional history education. Yet the skills of history, along with any number of additional capabilities important to the profession, such as grant-writing, web design, public speaking, marketing, and so forth – do not seem to be talked about as much as they should be. This represents an opportunity, an imperative, for those programs struggling to find their way forward in our discipline’s current moment of crisis. Teach these skills, teach them well, and encourage students to apply these skills in careers where they can take advantage of valuable opportunities and develop meaningful futures – regardless of whether these careers exist within our traditional definitions of academic success.
Other important innovations are out there. One professor I spoke with recently teaches a class called “the professional lives of historians,” where individuals who went through history programs but are working in a variety of different careers are invited into the classroom to speak with students about their experiences and the options that exist, demystifying the world of professional opportunity following graduation with an advanced degree in history. Another spoke of his department’s bachelor of science in applied history – a program that marries traditional history content with classes in web design, statistical analysis, and other important skills that can revolutionize employment prospects for history graduates.
My two cents?
Reconsider the prevailing definition of a “good job.” This means identifying meaningful - not merely acceptable - alternatives to the traditional tenure-track.
Determine what skills are needed in these jobs and build them into our programs.
Partner with the venues and industries where these opportunities exist and bring them into the conversation.
Connect graduate and undergraduate students to resources and networks that will enable them to discover and take advantage of these opportunities.
Rebrand our profession in such a way that celebrates the richness and variety of our discipline, challenging negative perceptions.
This is what I mean when I say that we need a “Mike Rowe” for history. We need to explore, highlight, and prepare students for careers and opportunities that go beyond the ivory tower and our traditional expectations of professional achievement. If we truly believe that history matters, and the skills we practice are important, then we must honestly and carefully figure out a way to re-tool our educational system to navigate through and past the current history jobs crisis.
It’s not just an important choice. It’s the only one we’ve got.