Trevor, this question of a “toolbox” is really important right now. There’s a growing population of academic supervisors who are now enthusiastic about DH but don’t know where to begin. We don’t want to make the mistake that elementary schools do by teaching Microsoft Office 2011 to seven-year-olds to make them “tech savvy,” but we need to do something. I think you’re absolutely right that the goal needs to be flexibility and adaptability, but that’s so much easier said than done. General advice like that is a little scary because also tends to reinforce existing hierarchies of competency. If you were on the outside now looking in, you’d want specific recommendations on how to get your foot in the door. Maybe the goal needs to be a little of both: here are the tools we are using right now in our work that you should try, but with the caveat that things change. I don’t think it’s a waste of time for anyone to learn Python, for example, using The Programming Historian because it opens up a whole world that you and I already take for granted. I’m a terrible programmer, but the work I did with HTML two decades ago gave me the confidence to muck around with Java, Visual Basic, PHP, Javascript, etc. later. That in turn gives me a much better idea of what a DH project can and should do.

thank you for your post. I am a little bit disappointed however about the conclusion which is twice negative : an historian neither needs to be a programmer nor should he be completely candid about programming skills. Ok, I have heard or read that many times ; but now, I want to know more : what type of skills does he need, exactly ? where should he stop in programming its own tools in his research projects ? designing ? coding ? prototyping ? and after that, we have other questions : what is coding exactly ? If I create a macro in Word, or a pipe in Yahoo pipes, do I code ? I need more detailed answers about that.

I guess, part of the problem in “I am just an historian” is not so much “just an historian” than “I am”. I guess it is very difficult to think about a standalone scholar in DH. We need to be a little bit more latourian in our understanding of this field and think about teams, networks, resource centers. May be we can discuss the idea that there is no so called “digital humanist” but rather digital humanities teams, projects, networks where people with different skills and backgrounds are engaged in a specific way of doing research, which imply, yes, coding. And that implies to think again about the way we present DH projects. Does it make sense to have only one person on stage, saying “I am just an historian” ? Personally, I like very much presentations from teams or more often “couples” (humanist+computer scientist) on projects. And I am particularly delighted when they begin to discuss and sometimes argue between them during their presentation, because, very often, it is the most interesting moment of it.

Unless BA-holders are going into finance, they’re almost certainly going to bounce around in some low-paying jobs. Perhaps even more disheartening is that these will be low-responsibility jobs, too. Because students have a difficult time imagining how they’ll ever make the transition from temping to something more meaningful, it’s tempting to latch onto the idea of a vocational or credential-building course of study: law school, MA in education, etc. What we need to make clear is that a PhD in the humanities is not a sound path to a specific career. The opportunity cost argument is a way to demonstrate that there aren’t just risks, there are costs.

I don’t buy the idea that my current academic colleagues would have spent those six or eight years of their 20s and 30s temping or working at Starbucks or whatever. Intelligence aside, we’re talking about people who are highly motivated and organized. If grad school in the humanities is your “only option,” you haven’t really considered your options.

Mark, you must know that I’m sympathetic to Whitson’s argument. Thanks in large part to CHNM, my department is one of the few places where non-traditional career trajectories in public history and digital history are not second-rate consolation prizes for our graduate students, who are deeply involved in grant writing and project management. It remains to be seen how transferrable or replicable this environment will be at other institutions.

I would also like to address Holger’s point about selectivity. If we encourage students only to attend the most selective programs, then they’re more likely to get a good job. We already know this, anecdotally from looking around our departments, and of course from the excellent work of people at the AHA, etc. But who gets into elite graduate programs? As the same researchers have shown, people from elite undergraduate programs, of course. And who attends elite undergraduate programs? And now we’re back to the Anthony Grafton’s updated version of the Aryan from Darien.

I would just add to this discussion that for a fair lifetime comparison, you need to consider the realistic alternative jobs for people who choose a PhD in History. It is not “manager at a Hooters” but similar careers requiring post-graduate education, like law. (I have often talked with students torn between law school and grad school. I have never talked with a student torn between grad school and managing a Hooters.) These careers have starting pay much higher than academia and lifetime earnings far above those for all but a tiny, tiny handful academic stars.