[Samd603]

I have been bewildered for a long time as to why employers value this degree so much less than virtually everything else. The stats show that History graduates are among the worst off in terms of post-university prospects, but why is this?

What skills do History graduates lack that those in Psychology, Religious Studies and Literature do not? Of course I don't think anyone would expect History to hold as much value as those in Marine Engineering and Physics, but what I just don't get is how a traditional subject has come to be regarded as being worth less than the piece of paper the certificate was printed on.

Spokespeople for business associations often harp on about applicants not having basic literacy, numeracy, communication and IT skills, so then why are so many History grads, most of whom will be quite advanced in all of these, left succumbing to vegetation on the graduate slag heap?

I realise all degrees are worth less now than they were two decades ago, but I don't understand why History has become the joke? I would love to know why.

[Aeschylus]

(Original post by Samd603)
I have been bewildered for a long time as to why employers value this degree so much less than virtually everything else. The stats show that History graduates are among the worst off in terms of post-university prospects, but why is this?

What skills do History graduates lack that those in Psychology, Religious Studies and Literature do not? Of course I don't think anyone would expect History to hold as much value as those in Marine Engineering and Physics, but what I just don't get is how a traditional subject has come to be regarded as being worth less than the piece of paper the certificate was printed on.

Spokespeople for business associations often harp on about applicants not having basic literacy, numeracy, communication and IT skills, so then why are so many History grads, most of whom will be quite advanced in all of these, left succumbing to vegetation on the graduate slag heap?

I realise all degrees are worth less now than they were two decades ago, but I don't understand why History has become the joke? I would love to know why.

I would say 2 reasons, many of which are applicable to all the humanities

1) A lot of people take history because they're not sure what they want to do. If you are certain at 18 you want to be a lawyer, vet, engineer etc you do subjects that will allow you to progress onto that. A lot of people at 18 haven't made up their mind. So at 21 apart from the (relatively small) percentage that go into academia, most will have to retrain or apply to generic graduate scheme jobs

2) there's a lot of people doing history. Most people I know doing it have got their stuff sorted and have job offers. However, a lot will not.

[evantej]

(Original post by Samd603)
I have been bewildered for a long time as to why employers value this degree so much less than virtually everything else. The stats show that History graduates are among the worst off in terms of post-university prospects, but why is this? […]

I think there are three reasons for this. First of all, the mentality of employers who do not understand what transferable skills a history graduate might have; or sheer prejudice about the utility of studying history in the first place. Secondly, the relative lack of soft skills history graduates have compared with other humanities and social science graduates; this has the effect of reinforcing employers' prejudices. Thirdly, history has even fewer vocational routes than other humanities and social sciences courses: further research or teaching seem to be the only direct routes open. Otherwise it is competing against other students for a place on a generic graduate scheme.

To give a practical example. I have just finished working in a prison. Of the three other subjects you mentioned (English, psychology and religious studies), I see direct employment opportunities in the prison for all those three, but not for history. People with an English degree could work in the education department delivering functional skills and skills for life, or other related courses (e.g. employability). Those with a psychology degree could work in programmes, delivering courses to help reduce re-offending (e.g. TSP). Those with a religious studies degree could work in the chaplaincy. I am sure there are generic jobs that a history graduate could do, but – on paper – no better than graduates from the three previous courses.

[Smack]

I think you are looking too much into statistics and drawing false conclusions from them.

Many employers accept any degree. But just because they accept any degree, this does not mean that their intake or workforce will have a proportionately equal amount of people from each degree. That does not mean that the employer values degrees in the subjects that were less represented lower than those that were higher represented. It could just be that last year's batch of history graduates on average were less able to convince employers that they were the best man or woman for the job compared to their, say, politics counterparts.

Again, don't read too much into employment statistics.

(Original post by evantej)
First of all, the mentality of employers who do not understand what transferable skills a history graduate might have

It has been my experience that employers aren't particularly interested in "transferable skills" but rather the exact knowledge and skills required to do said job. Especially when these "transferable skills" are the same skills that practically every degree claims to produce...

[Spaz Man]

It really is a sad state of affairs. History is an awesome subject which I thoroughly enjoy but I will do a Law degree instead hopefully because of the better job prospects.

[Aeschylus]

(Original post by Smack)
I think you are looking too much into statistics and drawing false conclusions from them.

Many employers accept any degree. But just because they accept any degree, this does not mean that their intake or workforce will have a proportionately equal amount of people from each degree. That does not mean that the employer values degrees in the subjects that were less represented lower than those that were higher represented. It could just be that last year's batch of history graduates on average were less able to convince employers that they were the best man or woman for the job compared to their, say, politics counterparts.

Again, don't read too much into employment statistics.



It has been my experience that employers aren't particularly interested in "transferable skills" but rather the exact knowledge and skills required to do said job. Especially when these "transferable skills" are the same skills that practically every degree claims to produce...

+1. Most smart people in the humanities have run a society with networking links/got placements internships/ done SOMETHING because although humanities degrees I think are hard work, if you just have a degree and no experience to your name, it's back of the queue you go....

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Samd603)
I have been bewildered for a long time as to why employers value this degree so much less than virtually everything else. The stats show that History graduates are among the worst off in terms of post-university prospects, but why is this?

What skills do History graduates lack that those in Psychology, Religious Studies and Literature do not? Of course I don't think anyone would expect History to hold as much value as those in Marine Engineering and Physics, but what I just don't get is how a traditional subject has come to be regarded as being worth less than the piece of paper the certificate was printed on.

Spokespeople for business associations often harp on about applicants not having basic literacy, numeracy, communication and IT skills, so then why are so many History grads, most of whom will be quite advanced in all of these, left succumbing to vegetation on the graduate slag heap?

I realise all degrees are worth less now than they were two decades ago, but I don't understand why History has become the joke? I would love to know why.

I think it is largely a numbers game, rather than a dislike.

A lot of history graduates are seeking places on grad schemes.

What is a grad scheme? In most cases it is a training scheme in management.

In good times when the economy is growing, companies add tiers of management (and increase the numbers within these tiers) because that is how one manages growth. These are not people who "do" but people who manage "doing".

In tough times, companies want to strip out costs which means reducing layers of management and making the people in the remaining layers work harder.

Companies recruit fewer people onto grad schemes because they don't need as many trainee/junior managers because they are trying to redeploy/sack layers of experienced management.

Hence those graduates who are primarily seeking grad schemes find that recruitment is disproportionately affected.

[Banishingboredom]

Studying History teaches you to research and formulate ideas, to structure and present arguments and to write in a concise and persuasive manner...

Employers should be begging us to work for them.

[Maker]

(Original post by Banishingboredom)
Studying History teaches you to research and formulate ideas, to structure and present arguments and to write in a concise and persuasive manner...

Employers should be begging us to work for them.

History have shown they do not.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by evantej)
I think there are three reasons for this. First of all, the mentality of employers who do not understand what transferable skills a history graduate might have; or sheer prejudice about the utility of studying history in the first place. Secondly, the relative lack of soft skills history graduates have compared with other humanities and social science graduates; this has the effect of reinforcing employers' prejudices. Thirdly, history has even fewer vocational routes than other humanities and social sciences courses: further research or teaching seem to be the only direct routes open. Otherwise it is competing against other students for a place on a generic graduate scheme.

To give a practical example. I have just finished working in a prison. Of the three other subjects you mentioned (English, psychology and religious studies), I see direct employment opportunities in the prison for all those three, but not for history. People with an English degree could work in the education department delivering functional skills and skills for life, or other related courses (e.g. employability). Those with a psychology degree could work in programmes, delivering courses to help reduce re-offending (e.g. TSP). Those with a religious studies degree could work in the chaplaincy. I am sure there are generic jobs that a history graduate could do, but – on paper – no better than graduates from the three previous courses.

Historical Graduates could run tours of the prison and be able to understand and analyse the history of the prison and they could also look at the history of events in the prison and see if they can use these events to stop future fights,riots from occurring because they have analysed how these events have started and can look for early warning signs.

[Chazzer66]

(Original post by Maker)
History have shown they do not.

Hence why a guy who did a history degree works with my dad in an ENGINEERING firm as a middle-level manager and strategist. Please.... History is nowhere near mickey-mouse, especially from a Russel Group Uni. Infact it is still one of the most prestigious as it has one of the highet ratios of Private School students and applicants of any subkect in the country, and thus has people who attain higher on average and have a more diverse CV (due to the extracurricular activities on offer) competing for a set number of places. I hope this was trolling..

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Aeschylus)
I would say 2 reasons, many of which are applicable to all the humanities

1) A lot of people take history because they're not sure what they want to do. If you are certain at 18 you want to be a lawyer, vet, engineer etc you do subjects that will allow you to progress onto that. A lot of people at 18 haven't made up their mind. So at 21 apart from the (relatively small) percentage that go into academia, most will have to retrain or apply to generic graduate scheme jobs

2) there's a lot of people doing history. Most people I know doing it have got their stuff sorted and have job offers. However, a lot will not.

The problem with this is that history allows you to become a lawyer. It is probably the most popular course for would-be lawyers after law, and it's generally viewed as a good course for a lawyer to have done.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
The problem with this is that history allows you to become a lawyer. It is probably the most popular course for would-be lawyers after law, and it's generally viewed as a good course for a lawyer to have done.

There were about 12,200 history grads last year (not counting archaeologists). The total number of training contracts for all non-law grads is about 1600 a year.

In some ways the thought of being able to swap into law from history is one of the snares that entice people to read history.

[poony]

I sound like a broken record, which university and the results of your degree will affect your chance of employment. Graduate from a good uni. with a 1st class honour will secure yourself with a job. Doing a subject you enjoy it's very important, you won't do well if you dislike the subject.

As for reading History, it's a general subject which require proficient skill of english, don't worry too much about the numbers

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
There were about 12,200 history grads last year (not counting archaeologists). The total number of training contracts for all non-law grads is about 1600 a year.

In some ways the thought of being able to swap into law from history is one of the snares that entice people to read history.

I'm not saying that a vast proportion of history grads go into law, I'm merely saying (i) that a good proportion of GDL-ers seem to be history grads and (ii) it seems to be viewed favourably by the profession.

[The Owl of Minerva]

Definitely has to do with over saturation of the market with History majors.

Statistically a lot more people are interested in History then say are interested in the other humanities. Lets put it this way, there is no Literature or Sociology channel on the television today but History channels? There are loads.

[Maker]

(Original post by Chazzer66)
Hence why a guy who did a history degree works with my dad in an ENGINEERING firm as a middle-level manager and strategist. Please.... History is nowhere near mickey-mouse, especially from a Russel Group Uni. Infact it is still one of the most prestigious as it has one of the highet ratios of Private School students and applicants of any subkect in the country, and thus has people who attain higher on average and have a more diverse CV (due to the extracurricular activities on offer) competing for a set number of places. I hope this was trolling..

No doubt, there are history graduates in all types of industries but that is what I am saying if you actually read what I wrote rather than try to put words in my mouth.

I am saying is that history is probably not a good subject if you want a job looking at the number of history grads and the number of jobs they get compared to other grads who got similar degrees.

Who gives a toss which school they went to or how diverse their CV is, employers don't seem to care.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
I'm not saying that a vast proportion of history grads go into law, I'm merely saying (i) that a good proportion of GDL-ers seem to be history grads and (ii) it seems to be viewed favourably by the profession.

But like the CSI effect for forensic science, I think what you say sucks in many more people to read history who otherwise wouldn't do so, than ever become lawyers.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
But like the CSI effect for forensic science, I think what you say sucks in many more people to read history who otherwise wouldn't do so, than ever become lawyers.

No doubt. Is that down to the inherent 'uselessness' of the degree though, or is the usefulness of history for getting into law a self-defeating prophecy? I don't think 'uselessness' has been sufficiently well defined for the purposes of discussion.

[Aeschylus]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
The problem with this is that history allows you to become a lawyer. It is probably the most popular course for would-be lawyers after law, and it's generally viewed as a good course for a lawyer to have done.

Oh yes this is totally true, and some people do history with the intention of doing a law conversion. Not denying that.