Edited by Jennifer Dyer Cornelissen
April 19, 2004 - April 23, 2004
The following Guest Speaker Discussion originally took place on WRK4US in April 2004. Because WRK4US has a confidentiality policy, all names and email addresses have been altered or removed, except for the moderator's and the Guest Speakers'.
The discussion can be read in two ways- by simply scrolling down and reading the whole thing, or by clicking on the topical links below, which take you to specific places within the discussion. The discussion can also be printed out in its entirety for your reading convenience.
If you are interested in editing a future discussion, your help will be much appreciated; email Paula Foster, WRK4US List Manager, at pfchambers@sbcglobal.net
Alexandra Lord
Russell Wyland
Mark Parascandola
Locations of Federal Jobs
Finding and Getting a Federal Job
PhDs in Government
Federal Job Applications and KSAs
Security Clearance Process
Professional Culture
The Hiring Process
Salaries, Promotions, Transfers, Job Security, and Benefits
Government Atmosphere
Job Availability at Different Agencies
Prospects for ABDs in Government
Close of Discussion
Introduction of Russell Wyland
RWyland@NEH.GOV
GS-13 Senior Program Officer (coordinates the NEH Fellowships program)
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
Hello, everyone. I am very happy to make this guest appearance on WRK4US. Here is my introduction.
I hold a 2002 Ph.D. in England Language and Literature from the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C. I moved to the DC area in 1990, just after receiving my BA in English and Theology from Marquette University in Milwaukee. My plan was simple enough: find a job, work for a year, quit my job, and go to graduate school full time. Through a friend, I met someone who had just started working at the National Endowment for the Humanities, the nation's largest funder of humanistic scholarship, education and public programming. Knowing that NEH was hiring, he encouraged me to apply. I was hired almost immediately (a rarity in the government) because it was rumored that the first Bush administration was about to impose a hiring freeze, and the people in Personnel wanted to fill as many vacancies as possible. In a nutshell, I was in the right place at the right time.
I entered as a GS-5 "floater," meaning that I moved from office to office to cover vacations and temporarily heavy workloads until a more permanent job became available. Within eight weeks, I had accepted a position in the NEH Fellowships program as a GS-7 Program Specialist.
I soon discovered that landing at NEH was very fortunate indeed. It's populated by former professors and administrators from colleges and universities. I suspect that working at NEH is a lot like working in a university department, but it doesn't have the politics and pettiness that seem to characterize many such departments. In addition, the Endowment staff was very supportive of my returning to school so the following year I began my graduate work at Catholic U part time and continued to work at NEH full time. This arrangement isn't for everyone, and I look back on it now with some amazement. Going to school while working requires constant process of earning and using brownie points: for example, when I needed to take classes that conflicted with office hours, I had to get special permission, which meant I was always somewhat indebted to my bosses. Luckily, the NEH was very supportive and flexible, and I was able to get by with a little creativity and extra work. During the decade or so that followed, I moved around within the NEH as the agency reorganized.
I received my MA in 1995 and my PhD in 2002. When I received my MA, I received a promotion to a GS-12 Program Officer and, when I received my PhD, I received a promotion to GS-13 Senior Program Officer. I now coordinate the NEH Fellowships program, the program in which I was originally hired. What goes around, comes around.
NEH is a great place to work, and I expect that I will be here for some time to come. I found out fairly early in graduate school that I didn't want to spend my life as a teacher. I LIKE teaching, but I don't love it. The traditional route from graduate school into the academy sounded unfulfilling for me. The Endowment is a great position for me: it allows me to use my degree (I read applications in my area, convene panels of scholars, and am encouraged to continue my own scholarly work) and, at the same time, stay outside academics; it also is something new everyday and, I guess, that fits my temperament better than having a more fixed routine. NEH also encourages its staff to teach (as schedules allow, of course), and I do so about one course every three semesters. This seems to have the effect of reminding me why I don't want to be a teacher and gives me a little extra money to do my research.
I should add that NEH, like some other federal agencies, has competitive leave awards that are something like sabbaticals. This year, for example, I received 312 hours (about 8 weeks) of leave time to work on my book. My project involves visiting archives in England and Scotland and without this leave, I would find the process too much.
A typical day is difficult to define, so I will tell you about yesterday. I arrived at 6:45 (I am a "morning person"), answered email for an hour from constituents, and then met with the Fellowships team to discuss what needs to be done during the upcoming days/weeks. In the morning, I worked with the technology people on the online review system we will implement in Fellowships this year. I then worked to recruit some panelists for two of my panels this summer -- one in rhetoric and another in British literature. After lunch, I continued with the recruiting and then met with someone visiting from a university in England who wanted to know about the peer review system at NEH and education in the US in general (a rather odd meeting, actually). I left the office at 4:15 so at 3:45 when it seemed too late to start something new, I read a few articles in TLS and checked out the newly published books listed in the CHRONICLE to find grantees who have published from their grants.
I look forward to our discussion.
Introduction of Alexandra M. Lord, Ph.D.
alord@psc.gov
Acting Historian
United States Public Health Service
Who I am:
My PhD is in British medical history. When I graduated from college (Vassar/1987), I worked at The Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore for two years. As a grad student at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, I did work in both the History and History of Medicine Departments. After receiving my PhD in 1995, I received a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF is a graduate school focused solely on the health sciences). As a post-doc, I expanded my understanding of medical history because I was concerned that British history, much as I loved it, was a dying field. After a year at UCSF, I was offered a tenure-track job teaching history of science and medicine as well as British history at Montana State.
I took the job because I thought that no one turned down a tenure-track job (especially one with a 2-2 teaching load). For me, a single woman from New York, going to Montana was not a smart move. I desperately missed museums, art galleries, good bookstores and everything that city life offers. I found the academic life incredibly isolating (this is probably more pronounced if you are single as I was at the time)-and carving out a social life which included a broad range of people was impossible in Bozeman. My misery was such that after two years, I took a visiting position at the State University of New York-New Paltz (not a great improvement but on the East Coast at least). Gradually, I realized that while I enjoyed teaching, there were a lot of things about the professor's life which I loathed (the low pay which made me feel that no one valued what I did, the repetitive nature of teaching the same courses over and over again, the lack of collegiality, the narrow focus of academic research, the disdain most of my colleagues expressed regarding non-academic lives and work and the unstructured day which brought out, weirdly, both my workaholic and procrastination tendencies).
When I began looking for alternatives, I focused on positions which dealt with medicine (I figured that was where the money was) but I also looked at organizations which dealt with British culture and women's issues (my other interests). It took me a year of very hard and very intensive searching but I ultimately got two offers-one as a researcher for a medical foundation and one as the staff historian for the US Public Health Service. I took the government job for several reasons. First, several members of my family work for the federal government and, I knew from their experiences, that government jobs are well-paid and can present great opportunities. Second, the idealist in me liked the idea of working for the government (regardless of the administration!). And third, the government job required me to focus on a broad range of issues (I really, really hated the narrowness of academic life).
Just a note on how I got my current job. I had to submit a KSA (Knowledge, Skills and Abilities). KSAs are pretty standard for federal government jobs. These are basically expanded resumes, written in paragraph form in response to several questions. I'd be happy to answer questions about KSAs here. I was fortunate in that my sisters, sister-in-law and a friend (all fed employees) helped me with my KSAs; without their advice, my application would never have passed the vetting process. The other thing which helped me get my job was my museum experience-federal historians really need a background in museum work but most graduate schools don't suggest that you obtain this which is really short-sighted. I was just lucky in that I'd worked at a museum after college and as an intern in college.
What Our Office Does:
Basically, our office does research-for people in or outside of the federal government. About half of our questions are internal (from people in the government). Outside the government, the largest group asking questions is reporters (these are from newspapers like The NY Times, magazines like The New Yorker or television news like CBS). I actually like answering questions from non-historians best because they ask different types of questions than those asked by historians and these questions really force me to think creatively and broadly (occasionally, I do have to "negotiate" these questions-have a discussion in which I have to provide background which will enable someone to ask a feasible question).
I also do my own research on the history of public health; I still publish in academic journals and give conference papers. I've also begun working on a book on government sex education programs (not my dissertation project). I intend to try to market this book for a wider audience than just historians (I've discovered that many public health people do value history and I want to write a book which they will read).
There is no typical day because what I do tends to vary so much. Some of the things which I have done fairly recently include: serving on the Avian Flu Committee, providing an historical analysis of flu pandemics and public health responses to public health experts planning for the next outbreak, curating a museum exhibit on smallpox, working with documentary film makers, serving as a guest lecturer at several different universities, providing an assessment of the difficulties involved in quarantining from an historical perspective (this was during the height of the SARS epidemic), and working with people from Save Ellis Island to restore the PHS hospitals there. I also spend a lot of time answering queries and these are super varied.
What I like and Dislike about My Job:
Overall, I consider myself really fortunate. I love doing research and that's what I do about 90% of the time. I also really like the people with whom I work and after years of hating the solitary nature of academic research, I love working collaboratively (currently, I serve on two panels with a physician whose work I studied in graduate school and whom I have always admired-I never imagined I would meet him, much less work with him-I'm rather like a groupie in this respect). Most importantly, I love being able to demonstrate that history is relevant and important (I am really fortunate here because some of the leading people in the Department of Health and Human Services strongly believe in and support our office-they invite us to serve on panels and consult us regularly).
What I dislike: in January, I was promoted to oversee our office. In general, this translates to doing our budget and more administrative/supervisory work. Even as I sweat over the budget (which is actually pretty basic) I'm aware that managing the budget enables me to make the decisions regarding our travel as well as the library and equipment for our office. So, it isn't that bad a trade-off.
The other part of the government which I dislike: promotions are often done on a rigid scale. One must serve in a position for at least a year before one can be promoted and this can be very irritating. On the flip side, if you do your work well and put in the time, promotions can and do come quickly-I've almost doubled my salary since beginning here three years ago and I'm continually amazed by the contrast between academic and government salaries.
These are really-and honestly-the only two things which I dislike about working for the federal government and frankly, they are very minor irritants. Yesterday, a PHS physician said to me "What an amazing job you have!" And I had to agree-I finally feel that I have a job which I really enjoy, which pays me well and which enables me to live where I want. And to think it all happened because I decided to leave academia (the best decision I ever made).
Introduction of Mark Parascandola
paramark@mail.nih.gov
Epidemiologist, Tobacco Control Research Branch
National Cancer Institute
Hello WRK4US Subscribers,
My name is Mark Parascandola. I work as an Epidemiologist and Program Director at the National Cancer Institute. Most people are surprised to hear that my PhD is actually in philosophy, rather than in a scientific discipline. However, my unusual career path has actually enabled me to combine multiple interests.
As an undergraduate at the University of Maryland College Park, I majored in philosophy, focusing on cognitive science and philosophy of science. At that point, I wasn't sure whether I wanted to pursue an academic career or not. I completed a one-year MPhil in history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, and by the end of the year I had a dissertation topic and decided I wanted to continue on for my doctorate in philosophy.
My dissertation topic was somewhat unconventional. While I was based in the Department of Philosophy at Cambridge with analytic philosopher Hugh Mellor as my supervisor, I was really interested in a very practical problem. When an individual with cancer brings a lawsuit against, say, a local chemical company, how do judges and juries determine whether or not
the individual's cancer was caused by their chemical exposure? While my initial interest in the topic stemmed from my general interest in the philosophy of science, especially questions of cause and effect and probability, I became fascinated with how decisions are made in real-life situations, such as in the courtroom, when only limited evidence is available.
By the time I completed my PhD in 1997 I had doubts about whether I wanted to pursue a conventional academic position in a department of philosophy. Instead, I held a series of fellowships, which allowed me to continue my research, get published, and figure out what kind of career to pursue. I spent one year as the Stetten Fellow in the History of the Biomedical Sciences and Technology at the National Institutes of Health and two years in the Department of Clinical Bioethics at NIH. Being at NIH provided a unique opportunity to work in a biomedical research environment.
However, it became clear that if I really wanted to work in a biomedical research environment I would need some formal training. I was accepted into the Cancer Prevention Fellowship program at the National Cancer Institute. The program was established to allow people with a variety of backgrounds and expertise to receive training in public health and conduct research at NCI. While most of the fellows have scientific or medical training, the program's Public Health Ethics track has attracted several young researchers with training in sociology, philosophy and law. As part of the program, the NCI paid for me to complete a Master of Public Health degree at Johns Hopkins University so that I would have some formal training in epidemiology and research methods. As a Cancer Prevention Fellow, I also had the opportunity to collaborate with a diverse group of scientists and conducted research into tobacco control policy and epidemiologic methods.
In January of this year, I joined the Tobacco Control Research Branch at NCI as a permanent scientific staff member. My title is Epidemiologist. As with many scientists at NIH, I am also a Program Director, which means that one of my primary responsibilities is to help oversee the grants programs. I attend scientific conferences, meet with investigators, and help identify priority areas for research funding. One of the exciting things about being at NCI is that it allows me to observe scientific and policy trends at the national level. In my current position I am also encouraged to spend a substantial portion of my time conducting my own research, collaborating with other investigators, and writing articles for publication.
On a typical day I arrive at my office in Rockville, Maryland, at 8:30 AM. Working in government usually requires a more fixed schedule compared with academia, and I am expected to be in my office until 5PM. I usually have one or two meetings or conference calls a day related to grants or other activities. I may also have to respond to a query or review a document; because our Branch is a center of scientific expertise, we are frequently called upon by our colleagues or other government offices to assist with activities related to tobacco control and health. Most of our meetings are in our building, which can be both a blessing and a curse; while it is convenient, I have to make an effort to get out of the office once in a while. One of the challenges I face is ensuring that I have some protected time for writing. I usually try to spend two to three hours in the morning writing while there are fewer interruptions. Additionally, I have negotiated a "writing day" one day a week with my supervisor; on that day I don't schedule any meetings. However, I do have to be flexible sometimes, because I have an obligation to our grantees.
In sum, I continue to be fascinated by the challenges in translating scientific evidence into policy decisions, and I believe my training in history and philosophy of science has given me a unique perspective on contemporary issues.
Thanks for reading. I look forward to reading your responses and will be happy to answer any questions about my job and career trajectory.
Topic: Locations of federal jobs
Paula Chambers asks about federal job locations outside of Washington, DC:
I have a question already. When you work for the federal government, do you have to live in DC?
Alexandra Lord responds that many agencies have offices outside of DC:
You can work for the federal government and live outside of DC. Many departments and agencies have offices across the US and people who work for the federal government can be found in places as varied as Yellowstone National Park and Los Angeles, California. Certain agencies or departments such as the National Park Service or the FBI may be more inclined to have employees outside of DC than others but overall, most agencies and departments do have employees who work outside of DC.
Russell Wyland responds that many federal agencies have branches outside of DC and suggests that applicants with geographical concerns consider state agencies and councils with ties to the federal government:
In addition to agencies having "branch" offices in locales other than DC, some agencies have corresponding state agencies with which they are very close partners. For example, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts have very deep ties with their counterparts in the states. The state humanities councils -- the example I know the best -- are very active in hiring humanities Ph.D.s and are located in all 50 state capitals (as well as in a handful of US territories). These councils receive much of their funding from NEH, so the relationship is very close.
Topic: Finding and getting a federal Job
TI asks about finding government jobs:
How does one learn about available government jobs and apply for them?
Is there a central registry, or does each entity have its own?
Russell Wyland offers an online source of federal job listings:
The easy online source is http://www.usajobs.com/. I don't know how it works or how postings get there, but all federal jobs seem to be listed. I'm sure there are venues. NEH, for example, advertises its positions in the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, for example.
Alexandra Lord suggests signing up for emails for jobs in your particular field:
Just a quick addition to the comment Russ made about federal jobs: you can sign up to receive emails about jobs in your field. Historian is one of the categories/fields on the registry.
Mark Parascandola lists additional websites for federal jobs with NIH and Congress:
Here are a couple of additional job sites I used a lot when I was job hunting. I expect other agencies have their own posting sites. It pays to check these sites regularly because new jobs are posted frequently and the response time is typically relatively short (4 weeks) compared with academic job postings.
National Institutes of Health
http://www.jobs.nih.gov/
Congressional Research Service
EM asks about how much who you know matters when pursuing employment:
I have been actively researching a career change, focusing on a move into a government position. I have been speaking with alumni who have jobs in government, as well as checking all of the relevant websites for jobs, fellowships, etc. While the alumni have been very encouraging about government being eager to hire Ph.D.'s, even from fields which bear no obvious relation with such a move, there are also a number of impediments which pertain to someone with a degree like mine (Ph.D. in music composition; e.g., not many people know what goes into such a pursuit, as well as there being no obvious relation) and with a similar logistical situation (wife with a tenured academic position; toddler; living in a remote mid-western locale).
I have been focusing more on the political end of things, like getting on a Congressional staff. Securing this kind of position seems to depend on who you know rather than on your credentials. However, I don't really "know" anyone. Since I am most likely unable to pursue a low paying job or fellowship given my family obligations, do you think I should take a close look at a job with one of the agencies? If so, which one(s)? Also, what would be the best way to go about both identifying suitable jobs and how would you recommend I pursue them?
Russell Wyland recommends looking at NEA, state Arts councils, and the Library of Congress:
I would suggest you look at the National Endowment for the Arts and/or your state Arts council. Both groups hire PhDs in music. You should also consider looking at the Library of Congress, which has a huge sound and music section.
NF asks about perceptions of PhDs in government and government culture:
Thanks, guest speakers, for bringing your expertise to the list. My question: I recognize that the federal government is a huge place, and that agencies vary in their staffing according to their functions. But could you talk about how PhDs -- the status of the degrees and the value of people with them -- are perceived both in your agencies and across the agencies? If a PhD were going to look for work in the government, would you recommend that someone head to any specific agency, or should one shoot for specific job descriptions? What's the culture of acceptance like for PhDs? On this list we seem to be more familiar with navigating the rhetorical shoals and cultural differences in the private sector; I'm wondering what the culture is like in the government.
Alexandra Lord responds that government culture is generally positive towards PhDs and attitudes vary by field:
As far as how PhDs are viewed within the federal government, my experience has been that they are viewed in very positive terms. The federal government actually is the largest employer of PhDs in the nation and so if you enter the government with a PhD, you will undoubtedly find yourself surrounded by PhDs (or, at the very least, you will not have to search very hard to find people who have PhDs or advanced degrees). Most of my daily encounters are with people who hold a PhD or at least a master's degree. And in my social life (as a resident of DC I tend to know mainly federal employees!!), most of my friends possess advanced degrees as well (this includes people who have MBAs, JDs and MDs as well as a range of other advanced degrees and who work for the federal government). I would be seriously surprised to find a federal employee who felt that PhDs were viewed in negative terms; in fact, I'd say the opposite: the government values a PhD very much and if one is talking in terms of pay then I would say that the federal government values PhDs more than academia).
In terms of which departments are best for PhDs, I think this varies according to the field in which you have a degree. Some agencies/departments such as the Library of Congress or the Congressional Research Service might be good, across the board, for PhDs in the humanities but I also think you can find work in agencies which match your specific interests: for example, I'm a medical historian with a PhD in history but I work for a medical/scientific department. In general, I would suggest that you look closely at the job description -- that should be the factor which determines whether you apply for a job or not. Just to give you an idea as to how varied this can be: in my own field (history), I know historians with PhDs who work for the Labor Department, the State Department, the Library of Congress, the DEA, the FBI, the National Park Service, the Treasury Department, the Smithsonian etc. Limiting yourself to looking only at specific departments or agencies can, I think, be very short-sighted.
Russell Wyland discusses perceptions of PhDs at NEH:
Lexi has already tackled this question, but let me just add a bit about NEH (an example that might or might not be typical of the government at large). At NEH, applicants for Program Analyst (or Program Specialist) positions must have at least a BA but most have MAs. Applicants with MAs are eligible to apply for Program Officer positions but, honestly, these positions are Ph.D. positions. The points awarded during the hiring process reward PhDs and, therefore, MAs have a more difficult time competing for Program Officer positions. It was once common to think that to move beyond the Program Officer position one needed to be both a PhD and have a published book, but that seems to be less and less the case these days. A PhD, however, is still a must...at least in practice.
Topic: federal JOB APPLICATIONS and ksas
SF asks about writing KSAs on government job applications:
I would really appreciate some pointers on writing the KSAs on government job applications. I am currently ABD in Sociology specializing in Race, Gender, Media, and Youth, and along with experience in qualitative research I have quite a bit of professional experience in nonprofits and social services programming as well. I have been submitting federal job applications for over a year now to a number of agencies, mainly Health and Human Services, but haven't seemed to get past the screening process.
I'm wondering if there is a particular format and if there are any helpful strategies for answering the KSA questions as well as presenting my education and experience in a way that would appeal to hiring officers in federal agencies?
Russell Wyland responds with observations on writing KSAs and the application process:
It has been some time since I wrote KSAs, but I've been on several hiring committees and here are a few observations about KSA and the application process in general.
Very thoughtful KSAs that are poorly written will get you nowhere. Don't leave them until the last minute and, if possible, give them to others to read. Remember, hiring committees will be a mish-mash (a good technical term) of people -- some academic, some not. Thus, your challenge is to be clear and concise and write for a broad audience. Also, you might well be judged on your ability to write so style is important.
Remember too that the hiring committee will read a lot of applications. I read applications for a recent search for a new program officer. The pile of eligible applications numbered about 80. Thus, you must, must, must make the information in your KSA easily retrievable. For example, use wording from the job announcement to point to your answers. A hiring committee will assign points to different parts of your application. For example, you might get 8 points (the maximum at NEH) for having a Ph.D. in the humanities, 6 for past experience with grant programs, and 8 for being an active scholar in your field. The KSAs are usually geared to help the committee assess how many points you get. I've always found it helpful to when applicants use the wording from the KSA questions to point me to their answers.
Finally, most KSAs don't have a word limit. While you want to be concise, don't be afraid to provide details of your past experiences. The federal application, I think, rewards people who spell out their pasts in great detail. Remember, the hiring committee awards points to your application so give them as much information as you can as a way to secure as many points as you can.
Alexandra Lord discusses writing KSAs and suggests a website resource:
A while ago, I wrote some information on writing KSAs for this list serve. I've attached an edited version of that email below. You may also want to check out the NIH website on writing KSAs:
http://wflc.od.nih.gov/careers/ksa/
KSAs vary from agency to agency (not just department to department) so the best thing to do is speak to people in the agency where you would like to work (this is why networking is so important -- you should do this before a job appears as a federal employee may be reluctant, for ethical reasons, to get involved in looking over your KSAs for a specific job in their agency).
At the National Library of Medicine where I work, KSAs should be written in paragraph form. They should be very detailed and very specific -- give concrete examples which demonstrate your skills. For example, for my job, I was asked to give evidence of a knowledge and understanding of medical history. I began the KSA by stating that I hold a doctorate in medical history (do not assume that this kind of statement is obvious -- the people reading the KSA do not always look at your resume or CV); I then listed prizes and fellowships I had won in the field; next I listed articles I had published in the leading journals in the field and I finished by pointing out that I had taught undergraduate and graduate courses in the subject. I listed the exact number of courses; I gave the titles of journals (although I did not list every article title) etc. I was very specific and very detailed (each KSA was about a page long -- with single spacing).
One of the reasons I was so specific was because I met with--several months before my job was advertised--a person who worked at NLM. Stacey did not work in my field (she's actually a biologist) but she was very kind and looked at KSAs I had written for a different government job. She explained to me that I needed to be very, very detailed (I cannot stress this enough) and that I needed to use words used in the KSA description (for example, I needed to repeat the words "medical history" and "history of public health" when writing about my background as the job required an expertise in these areas). She also told me that I needed to write everything in paragraph form (I had done the KSAs as bullets). Meeting with Stacey really paid off because during the interview, my interviewer picked up my application and said "You did an amazing job on the KSAs--which put your application on the top of all the other applications." I don't think I was necessarily better qualified than the other applicants but I did a better job explaining why I was qualified for the job than the other applicants. I credit Stacey for it all (I found her through a friend of a friend).
At other agencies--such as the CDC where my sister-in-law is an epidemiologist--KSAs are done in bullet form. I have a hunch (and this is simply a hunch) that agencies which tend to hire scientists use bullets while those which hire humanities people tend to use paragraphs. This is based on things which I have heard people who work at HUD, NASA, Labor and other various agencies say...however, if at all possible, I suggest that you find someone in the agency to which you want to apply and ask.
As for how KSAs are scored, this is somewhat of a mystery even to federal employees. However, this is the scuttlebutt among federal employees: KSAs are read first by low-level employees (6s or 7s) who have a high school education. These people are, alas, uninterested in the quality of your education (for example, they will score a PhD from Great University at the same level as a PhD from Unknown University); these people do not know the ins and outs of the various fields and so they can't make any judgment regarding your training and/or abilities (however, once your application passes through these people, the application will be read by people who know the field, recognize the journals in which you have published etc.). Because the people who score your application do not know the field, you must be very specific and very detailed. If you have a PhD from a university which is tops in your field, state that in the KSA (i.e. I hold a PhD from Bazooka University which is widely recognized as having the leading program in this field).
Writing KSAs may seem like a burden but I think it's a great way to apply for a job -- you can be much more specific in your KSAs than you could ever be in a job letter and/or resume. This works especially well for people who have unconventional backgrounds -- this was my case (I was trained as a British medical historian but I was hired to work as an American medical historian -- the KSAs allowed me to explain how and why I could do American history in a way that a job letter or a resume did not).
One other point: I strongly suggest that you submit a KSA and a resume (or CV) when applying for a job but you should always view the KSA as the most important part of the application (more important than the KSA). Do not worry if the KSA repeats material in your resume and do not worry if the KSA repeats information within itself (for example, if you find yourself citing the same information in one of the KSAs as you do in another KSA, don't worry -- that's more than acceptable).
Mark Parascandola suggests buying a federal job advice book and having contacts who are federal employees review your KSAs:
I bought a book called Ten Steps to a Federal Job that had lots of examples of KSAs and guidance on writing them. I found the examples very helpful for getting ideas for appropriate language and how to organize information. I'm sure there are other similar books out there as well.
I also talked with friends who had federal jobs and had them look over my KSAs. This is extremely important. I put a lot of time into this, but it paid off.
EN asks about informational interviews, location and preferences for newly minted PhDs:
Regarding the KSA issues -- What has already been stated here about the KSAs resonates strongly with my experience (I've written over 20 applications for federal jobs but haven't gotten a single interview). The standards for review vary from agency to agency and there are arbitrary and sometimes trivial, unwritten rules that make or break an application, like bullet points versus narrative paragraphs. So the applicant would be well advised to consult with someone in-the-know beforehand. Do the discussion leaders have any clues as to how one finds someone in the government to contact about an informational interview? It's not easy to get the names of individuals from the agency web sites or other accessible sources. Also, isn't it the case that current federal employees and veterans automatically get some kind of scoring advantage, making it more difficult for outsiders to get in?
Regarding the location of federal jobs -- My impression is that Alexandra's strong need to live on the East Coast is shared pretty widely among academics, at least among the historians I know. I don't have any problem with people feeling that way, but I'm one of those people who doesn't like the east coast lifestyle at all. Here in Atlanta, the only major federal presence in terms of employment for former academics is the CDC (which, incidentally, is the agency that has rejected my applications over a dozen times). It seems to me, though, that in the past decade or an increasing number of federal jobs have been created outside of the DC area and into that vast wasteland known as "not the east coast." Do the discussants have any insight as to whether or not that's true, and if so, if the post-Sept. 11 environment has accelerated the trend?
Last but not least -- one of the other vague impressions I've gotten over the last year is that many agencies have a distinct preference for "fresh meat." If you're in graduate school or out less than a year, you have a much better chance of getting your foot in the federal door. Is that true across the board? If so, what is the justification? And what can you do if you've been out of graduate school for a few years (or nine)?
Mark Parascandola suggests speaking with an agency contact regarding job expectations and comments on scoring advantages and experience levels:
I would certainly encourage people applying for federal jobs to contact someone at the agency beforehand to get more information about the positions and the expectations. Unfortunately, federal job listings often just give you the contact information for a human resources administrator and not the person who you would actually be working for. However, the human resources staff can be helpful in instructing you on the application process (though they won't be able to tell you much about the job itself or the working environment).
EN asked about informational interviews, which is a good way to start making contacts. Unfortunately, some agencies are better than others about providing contact information for particular offices and employees. There is no one place to find all this information. You may have to make a few calls to reach a particular office. But once you find someone who is helpful, they can be an invaluable resource.
Veterans and some government employees can get scoring advantages. However, in specialized jobs requiring graduate level education this is less likely to be relevant; at that level your experience and KSAs are going to be more important.
I don't think being out of grad school a few years should make a difference for federal jobs in general. At NIH we have people arrive at all levels (from people who just got their PhD to junior scientists to senior researchers).
Russell Wyland discusses scoring, advantages for veterans and federal employees, September 11 and preferences for recent graduate students:
When a job announcement is listed as "all sources" and a vet applies, there are generally a small number of points awarded. In my experience at NEH, vets get this added boost but do not compete as well in the other categories because of what we're looking for (not many vets are PhDs actively publishing their work etc). You shouldn't worry too much about this. I suspect that this was much more of an issue immediately after the draft/Vietnam years when many highly educated vets were on the job market.
The advantage to federal employees is a bit more difficult to explain but here it goes. The simple answer is that federal employees generally have a double opportunity to make a "cert," the certificate from which hiring is done. Here's how. When a job is announced, it usually gets announced in two ways: to "All Sources" (public) and to government service employees. An employee within the government can apply to both announcements (i.e. submit two applications) for the same job. At the end of the competition, it is possible that someone within the government will make the "final cut" on one cert but not another. For example, if my job came available, I would expect a lot of people outside the government to apply. Most of these people who have PhDs and would, most likely, beat out someone with a MA. But there might be someone within the government with an MA that wants to compete. That person could send in two applications--one under "All Sources" and one under government service. When points are assigned for the All Sources candidate, this person might not do well and not make the cert from which my boss could hire. However, there is a separate cert issued for the government service applicants and, perhaps, our fictional applicant might be able to make that list and remain in the running.
[As for whether the post-Sept. 11 environment has accelerated the trend,] It's my hunch...and I don't know why exactly...that the trend is to move services closer to the people. Large agencies, I think are opening more field operations. Has this changed since September 11? I don't know.
[As to a preference for recent graduates] I think it varies by position and is not true across the board. New grads have the advantage of being less expensive to hire, and they are usually more mobile. It was the easiest thing in the world for me to take a job in DC because I hadn't yet put down roots or established entangling responsibilities (i.e. a relationship). Now, however, I would be hard pressed to make a significant move for a job because I have put down roots.
GM asks about the relationship of KSAs to resumes and tips for searching the federal job registry:
First, do KSAs replace resumes for government agency jobs (sorry if this has already been asked and answered)?
Next, any tips for winnowing a search of the on-line federal job registry (USAjobs, etc.). It's a fairly daunting task, as you know, and there are so many cryptic job descriptions.
Alexandra Lord stresses the importance of KSAs relative to the resume, suggests a broad search of the federal job registry and advises calling the agency to ask about job descriptions:
The KSAs are vastly more important than the resume and although you should always submit a resume (or CV) you should focus on the KSAs. Do not be concerned if the resume simply repeats what you have said on the KSAs. View the resume as simply a back-up but the KSA as the equivalent of a job letter or application form. I can't stress this enough: you should spend and focus most of your attention on the KSA (try, if at all possible, to block out a few days for this -- write the KSA and then go back over it several times). And finally, always repeat the words from the KSA description in your description. For example, if the KSA says "background in writing" begin the KSA by saying "I have a strong background in writing as demonstrated by" and then proceed to list everything you have written (even an unpublished dissertation).
Second, as for searching and winnowing the federal job registry, I would really suggest that you begin by spending a significant amount of time looking at all the categories before you start winnowing and narrowing your search. People's expertises and backgrounds differ so much (even within specific disciplines) that for me -- or any federal worker -- to tell you to limit your search (without knowing you well and knowing the categories even better) would be very short-sighted. You really, really have to begin by looking at everything. I know searching the job registry the first time will be a daunting task (that's why I recommend blocking out a morning or more to do this) but if you do it once you will be able to familiarize yourself with the categories which fit you best. It's a time-consuming way to do this but searching for a job is really time-consuming if you are to be open-minded (and being open-minded will, I think, lead you to be more successful). I'm sorry but I really don't think that there are any good short-cuts (although you will find as you flip through the search that you learn how to read the language of the applications and you will be able to move faster). Bear in mind that searching in this fashion will only be required once and then you will know which jobs to zero in on when you search the postings each week.
As for the cryptic language and descriptions -- don't hesitate to call the agency in question and ask for specifics and more information if you feel the job is a possible fit. Federal employees view the American public as their clients and they will answer questions very readily.
Topic: Security Clearance Process
LN asks about security clearances, job descriptions and living on a government salary in DC:
Thanks very much to both of our guest speakers! I'm considering applying for intelligences analysis positions in a couple of agencies. Of all of the jobs a look into, these are the ones that I most perfectly fit the qualifications for, and I am interested. Frankly, the major issue for me is the security clearance process. First, I'm a little hesitant about essentially surrendering certain civil liberties that a lot of us take for granted.
Second, I have professional relationship concerns. I'm an anthropologist (a two-time bail-out from PhD programs -- Mexican archaeology/ethnography and socio-cultural anthropology of human movement -- who wound-up leaving with an MA in sociology), as are most of the people who provide references for me. Previous cooperation between anthropologists and the intelligence community has created a prevailing attitude of taboo with regards to using insights, knowledge, and experience of and with foreign peoples in the interest of serving U.S. agencies. Regardless of what you or I may think about this, it is a real concern. Let's just say that I'm in my mid-30s and have led a life that is not all that different from many people who came of age in LA and/or got BAs from Berkeley; I'm not entirely confident that I would be granted clearance. So, I'm not sure if my professional relationships with other anthropologists should be tested by FBI and other agents interviewing these colleagues of mine.
Third, some of the descriptions of these positions are, understandably, vague. How can I find out at least a little more about working conditions, tasks, etc?
And lastly, some of these jobs, particularly with the CIA, start at $36,000 a year. I don't see how anyone can live in the DC area, for long anyway, on that -- a good friend of mine pays $1,100 a month for a studio apartment there, and additional money for a parking space at her building!
I'm not sure if either of you can directly address all of these questions; if you can, thanks! If not, do you know of resources that might help here? If anyone else on this list can help, thanks also!
Alexandra Lord discusses the security clearance process, the importance of speaking with contacts at an agency and the payoff for living on a small salary:
I'll try to answer your questions one by one.
First, as far as security clearances go and the concern regarding surrendering your personal liberty, it may help to try to think about a security clearance in terms of a background check of your references. As far as I can tell (and I do know people with somewhat high security clearances), the government does security clearances simply to ascertain who you are and what your background is. The government does not really intrude into your personal liberties when they do these (I believe that these checks are very strictly regulated-as most things are with the government). Moreover, if you are interested in working for the CIA, try to think about this in terms of the agency which is hiring you: the CIA simply wants to determine that you will not misuse (or sell!) classified information. If you feel that this background check is too intrusive then I'd really caution you against working for the CIA.
I genuinely doubt, given what you are saying, that you would not be eligible for a security clearance. The government's primary concern, looking at your background, would be to determine whether you have spent significant time in Liberia consorting with known guerillas or in Uzbekistan dealing with Islamic fundamentalists-this is what they are looking for (even if you were the head of the Berkeley Marxist Union as an undergraduate, this would not render you ineligible for a security clearance -- I know several former student radicals who work for Justice and one who works for the FBI). The government also expresses concern if you have relatives in a country which is hostile to the US -- and whether you feel this is fair or not, this may render you ineligible for a position (if you have cousins in Iraq, for instance, even if you have never met these people, your security clearance may be vetoed). I'm a little confused by your statement "previous cooperation between anthropologists and the intelligence community has created a prevailing attitude of taboo with regards to using insights, knowledge, and experience of and with foreign peoples in the interest of serving U.S. agencies." Can you clarify what you mean by this? From what I have encountered, I'd say the feds are actually pretty interested in hearing views of those outside the US and that they do value anthropologists' work -- they definitely value people who have work experience abroad (in fact, with some agencies, I'd say that not having experience abroad will prevent you from getting a job -- right now, my boyfriend, a lawyer who works for the federal government, who has worked abroad in Germany, has a master's degree from a German university and speaks fluent German, has had people at the State Department, tell him that he doesn't have a background which is strong in experience and knowledge of Europe!! And while it kills us to admit this, the people whom we know in State Department jobs do have a stronger background than he does!).
My only suggestion regarding finding out more about jobs is to speak with people at the agency in question.
And finally, regarding living on a low salary in DC. This is very difficult. However, a couple of factors to bear in mind: one, if you take a job at such a low level, ask what your chances of promotion are. I took my current job at a salary below what I wanted and I was concerned about living in DC on the salary but I got a guarantee that I would be quickly promoted so I viewed it as a trade-off: suffer for a year and you will ultimately get the salary you want (and this is what happened). Second, housing is very expensive but you can find apartments which are slightly cheaper than $1200 for a studio in the suburbs. Also, the federal government gives you a metro subsidy so even if you live in the suburbs, your metro fare will be covered to a great extent (my metro fare is completely covered -- this adds up to about $1200 a year).
LN comments on the relationship between the intelligence community and anthropology:
Thanks very much, Lexi! I should have clarified the confusing bit.
The "taboo attitude" is amongst anthropologists. This goes back to anthropologists assisting with intelligence during WWII, and has continued. This is actually very interesting stuff, and has been addressed extensively in anthropology publications and by the American Anthropology Association. Basically, I'm concerned about risking my professional reputation and jeopardizing future references by having my colleagues questioning the use of my knowledge and experiences.
Alexandra Lord comments on the prejudice against PhDs leaving academia:
You raise an interesting point -- because I think, if I read your comment correctly, you are talking about the prejudice which people have regarding PhDs who leave academia.
This prejudice is pervasive in my own field and so I'll answer your question in regard to my own experiences. When I began thinking about public history and working for the federal government, I encountered a lot of people (academics!) who told me that working for a museum, corporation, foundation or the federal government would force me to distort history for dubious purposes. I was apprehensive about this -- but I have discovered that this fear was completely ungrounded (frankly, and this is complicated, but I felt that the demands of the academic job market forced me to distort my work in ways which made me uncomfortable).
But that said, I will be candid and admit that I still occasionally encounter historians at conferences who seem to feel that as a federal employee, I am nothing but a lackey for the federal government, producing work which glorifies the government and their actions. Needless to say, this is an extraordinarily simplistic way of looking at the world and I'm not sure, even if I were a diehard academic that I'd agree with someone who endorsed this sweepingly simplistic view.
I have come to realize, slowly, that the historians who promote this view are, overwhelmingly, junior scholars. Most of the senior scholars in the history of medicine tend to view federal historians very positively (in fact, I have a higher and better profile as a federal historian -- serve on national committees etc. -- than I ever did as an untenured professor).
That said, can the people who view me as a lackey for the government damage my career? I genuinely don't think so because, as far as I can tell, I have been able to make some very powerful allies among the senior scholars in my field (who genuinely respect the office for which I work -- and who often use it). I'm a really shy person and I would never have made these contacts as a professor -- what amuses me about this is that if I ever do decide to go back to academia, I will be able to call on these great scholars as references (I would never have made these contacts in academia). So, working outside of academia has, I think, made me a stronger candidate for an academic job (and ironically, I no longer want one of these positions!).
LN discusses the prejudice against academics who leave the academy, particularly anthropologists working in the intelligence community:
Thanks for that very interesting perspective. There is a similar condition in anthropology academia, and I am somewhat subject to it. However, while most people encouraged me see my departure in August as "taking a year off," all understand that I am most certainly not a person who is academically inclined, as far as my personality and interests, etc. go. My departure was and is permanent. I am publishing, and cooperating with other researchers right now, though, and I like being a "civilian." There is another similar attitude to the one that you describe amongst historians; in anthropology, it is that an MA is a "consolation prize." Never mind that all I'd have to do to be ABD is take prelims in EITHER archaeology or anthropology of human movement.
Here's the real deal: generally, anthropologists are very liberally inclined, and obsessed with ethics -- other people's , not their own. Volumes have been published on this . . . The issue of going into intelligence is sometimes seen as unethical: some colleagues may see me as betraying the people who took me into their homes and villages and shared their lives with me, let me dig up "their past," study their ideologies, etc., often with no material compensation, as I collected fellowships, grants, education, accolades, etc. Using anthropology knowledge, in general, is also subject to ethical evaluation, criticism, and prejudice. The very controversial involvement of anthropologists with intelligence, and the teaching about this, and continued use of it as academic capital and currency, turns a lot of anthropologists off to the very idea of an anthropologist working in intelligence.
US asks about professional culture in federal agencies employing PhDs:
What is the professional culture at a federal civil agency employing PhDs? Do you get pressured to come to conclusions consonant with the wishes of the party in power? Are papers suppressed? Can you publish research outside of official government circles? What about collegiality amongst the professional staff? Does one address one's GS-scale superiors as "sir" or "ma'am"? Socialize with them?
Russell Wyland responds that professional culture depends on agency. He observes that NEH is collegial, supports publishing and mostly uninfluenced by current politics:
Like most answers so far, professional culture varies from agency to agency. Because NEH is comprised of Ph.D.s doing work for Ph.D.s, the culture is very friendly...as I noted in my introduction, it's like a university department without a lot of the infighting.
The parties in power at the NEH have generally run small programs to promote whatever they want to promote. The core programs, however, are not influenced by party politics. I've found that the biggest differences between Democrats and Republicans are minimal. This might be different in other agencies.
I publish regularly without difficulty. I am required, however, to put a disclaimer on my work that says that my work does not reflect the positions or policies of the Endowment.
We are very informal here. The top person at NEH -- Dr. Bruce Cole, the holder of some fancy endowed chair at Indiana University -- is called Bruce and frequently joins us in the morning for coffee. We have unofficial groups that meet regularly: a novel reading/discussion group, a publication group, a historians group. I am active in the publication group. We read papers, offer comments, think about appropriate venues, etc.
I do socialize with some of my colleagues, although I try to keep that to a minimum (I'm a firm believer in separating my work, school and personal lives).
Alexandra Lord describes a culture of collaboration, lack of political pressure and freedom to publish (without government endorsement):
There is an emphasis on collaboration which is lacking in academia and I often meet and work with medical historians from other agencies on projects. I spent part of yesterday, for example, discussing a project I had been working on with a FDA historian, getting his input on my analysis, searching for some sources etc. This is very different from academia where I was the only medical historian on the faculty and where I would have found consultations with colleagues only mildly helpful (if that) and where my colleagues would have thought I was nuts if I went to brainstorm with them.
I have never felt pressured to come to conclusions consonant with the wishes of the party in power. I am guessing that this may vary from agency to agency (some agencies are more politicized than others). Moreover, there has been, at least in my recent experience, a desire to hear varied opinions. My papers are reviewed before they are published simply because if I publish as the PHS historian or the staff historian (my former position) I am speaking for the government. I have published many things and never had any part of my material changed or questioned (I sometimes feel the review is a pro forma one but, again, I am speaking only from my own experience).
If I publish without my professional title, I am free to do -- publish and say -- what I want as I am writing as myself, not as a spokesperson for the government.
Collegiality is, I indicate above, fantastic. I was very jaundiced regarding this as I came to this position from one of the most dysfunctional history departments in the world (and there is a lot of competition for this title!). My former boss was fantastic. Incredibly supportive, thoughtful, and very interested in helping me and my career. My current boss is equally great -- he's located off-site and so I don't deal with him that much but whenever I have a question or concern, he is quick to help me. There is a possibility that our office may be re-shuffled into a different agency and, if that happens, I have no qualms about the person who would be my new boss (he's great, super intelligent and very supportive of our office although he is not an historian). My colleagues and I do work together and we get along well.
I am like Russ in that I tend to prefer to divide my social and work time and so I don't socialize a lot with colleagues outside of work (to be honest -- this was something I disliked about academia -- in my first job, I was in a small university town and the entire social life revolved around the department).
I call everyone by their first name. Sometimes I am addressed as Dr. Lord which makes me mildly uncomfortable. I prefer an informal setting and when my fellow PhDs and MDs are addressing me as "Dr" I think it's silly.
Mark Parascandola says that NIH has a supportive environment for publishing and other endeavors and that current political differences have minimal effect on individual researchers:
These are great questions, especially with all we've been reading about recently regarding politics and science. At NIH we are required to have all our publications approved (unless, as Lexi noted, it is work done outside our professional capacity), but I have never been told I could not publish a paper. The review process usually involves having another scientist review and comment on my work (something I would do anyway before submitting a paper for publication). Additionally, my supervisor reviews it and may, in some cases, have it reviewed by others. The expectations for scientific quality are high, and I may be asked, for example, to provide references in places or to describe my methods in greater detail. However, as I said, I have never been told I cannot publish something or that I have to make changes in my conclusions. And I work in the area of tobacco control, which is frequently a controversial and politically-charged topic.
I don't mean to imply that politics never enters into federal science. Certainly it does in the appropriations process, for example. Congress often orders NIH to spend money on particular projects. However, at the level of the individual researcher wanting to publish their work, politics is less likely to enter in.
Collegiality varies depending on your immediate colleagues. However, I've found that generally NIH (and probably other scientific agencies) is very collegial and supportive of collaboration. There are NIH-wide meetings and conferences where researchers can present their work. There are also interest groups on a variety of topics, including history of science and bioethics. The group I work with values collaboration and a supportive working environment highly and we work well together. These are the questions you should ask when you get to the interview stage in a job and meet with your potential supervisor or colleagues.
WI asks about the federal hiring process, especially age discrimination and response time in hiring, and political differences in educational policy.
Dear speakers,
Thank you in advance for offering your time and insight! I am a soon to be PhD in the field of web-based curriculum design. I had always seen my career path after retirement from education (some 8 or so years away) as moving on to the federal level to get some experience with educational issues from that perspective. Another speaker spoke of age as a possible inhibiting factor to hiring within the federal government. Do you see hiring practices being active for "career" educators at the federal level within DOE? Would I need to check more boxes at the local and state levels before being considered?
Also, I'm not particularly enamored right now of government practices regarding education. Is it possible to find a fit within such a bureaucracy without having to buy in to the hype? (I know this question appears simplistic; still, I'm curious and hopeful.)
Thirdly and last: I applied some time ago for a position with the DOE; I NEVER got a response! It was only because I knew someone connected that I was able to get information on my "score" - still without formal acknowledgement that my application had even been received. Is this business as usual?
Russell Wyland states that age bias is unlikely, many agencies are slow to respond due to bureaucracy and, most agencies have a variety of programs to suit the different interests of their employees:
I can't imagine that age would factor into the decision. Are you even asked for your birth date? The government is so sensitive to concerns of discrimination that I just don't see that there would be any systematic screening for age.
My experience with the Department of Education (not Energy) has been minimal and not entirely positive. I am not really surprised that you didn't get a response to your application. NEH is small and, therefore, it tends to give better service, I think. I find the bureaucracy at Education almost overwhelming.
I don't know what you mean by "would I need to check more boxes at the local and state levels before being considered?" Would you elaborate on that? Thanks.
When you look at a federal job, remember that there are (at least) two levels of rhetoric. One level is the political level, and it's the one most of us hear about and read about. The second level is what is actually happening in the programs. In most cases -- and I suspect
Education is like this -- there are several programs trying several approaches. Thus, if you look, you'll find a niche...something to be enamored by.
Mark Parascandola emphasizes that many federal employees are not political appointees and that the staff work together for common good:
This is a great question too. It's important to remember that while broad government policies change as Administrations change, most government employees are not political appointees and are working in the government because they feel strongly about what they are doing. Thus, while you may not like the current Dept of Education's policies, I expect that most of the long term staff members there (and I know a few of them) actually want to have a positive impact on education.
My experience at NCI has been that while administrations and directors change, we continue to work towards more or less the same scientific and public health goals. However, it does sometimes require patience and determination to stay focused on these goals.
Alexandra Lord states that federal government is fully integrated and doesn't discriminate:
Regarding age as a factor and discrimination:
The federal government is the last organization in the US to engage in discriminatory practices. They really do have to practice what they preach. As a result (and this is another plus in working for the federal government), they are the most integrated workforce, I think, in the US. After coming out of academia where almost everyone was white, I love working for the government where the workforce is so integrated (at all levels).
US asks about the typical length of time in responding to applications:
From the time one applies for an appropriate GS job in a fed agency, how long does it take to get hired or definitively told 'no', and, if hired, do you need to attend some sort of government. service training academy, before reporting for your regular work?
Russell Wyland responds that hiring and training time differ by agency and position:
Hiring time varies from agency to agency and job to job. Some position announcements get few applicants and, therefore, the search is quick. Other positions receive hundreds and the search, therefore, takes some time. What takes a long time at NEH is getting all the paperwork together to have a job announced. Once the announcement goes out, we usually leave it open for three weeks or so. After the applications have been received, it's usually six weeks or so until we make an offer.
Agencies are left to train their personnel. NEH has no formal method for doing so (a delicate subject around here, actually). Other agencies, however, have very formal orientation mechanisms. My boss is currently on detail at the National Science Foundation. For his orientation, he was sent away for three days to rural Maryland, where he learned about everything from their computer system to requisitioning pens.
Topic: Salaries, Promotions, Transfers, Job Security, and Benefits
DI asks about promotions:
Alexandra mentioned that promotions are both rigid (you have to be there a year before you can get promoted) but can also be rapid if warranted. Does this mean that, after the initial period, it is actually a meritocracy? Somehow I always thought that government bureaucracy was based on seniority, no one could get fired or demoted without flagrantly unacceptable behavior, and that the less-than-competent rose as quickly (or as slowly) as the competent. Perhaps you may not be able to generalize about the US government as a whole, but in your experience, am I wrong? Quite possibly I'm a cynic -- but I'm willing to listen and learn! Judging from what the panelists have written so far, it seems as if there is quite a lot of room for movement and advancement in government careers.
Russell Wyland describes the promotion process at NEH and in general and comments on demotions:
You somewhat cynical view is, at least in many cases, right on. Let me try to give you the situation at NEH. The level at which a PhDs is hired (GS12-13 Program Officers) leaves little room for promotion -- from a GS12 to a GS13. One is either a Program Officer or a Senior Program Officer. Unfortunately, there are few spots above the Program Officer level and, given that NEH is a pretty nice place to work, few people move on. The result is that few promotions occur because we are the equivalent of being "tenured in."
My situation was unusual because I moved up from the Program Specialist ranks...but I am an exception rather than a rule. My promotions came as a result of clearing certain hurdles (one of which being my PhD) and my willingness to assume responsibilities outside my job description. People who get promoted generally take on difficult or unusual assignments. Those who just show up and do their work might go up slightly, but they rarely get significant promotions.
While I cannot recall a formal demotion, five or so people have been fired since I arrived at NEH a decade ago. I was involved in two of those firings and, believe me, it is very difficult to accomplish. The amount of documentation needed is incredible.
US asks about management positions, firing and unionization:
What about management-level positions at such agencies? Are these the really advanced GS-levels, or the exempt-status appointment jobs above them? And what are the average humanities PhD's chances of moving from one of the 'program officer' ranks, to one of these management posts?
What did the people in question do, in order to finally get the sack? Incompetence or something else?
Are these positions unionized?
Alexandra Lord observes that government staffing mirrors the civil sector, suggests a website link for salaries and discusses strategies for speeding promotion:
I'd say that the question of whether the government is a meritocracy or not probably varies from agency to agency. And, while I'd agree that there are definitely highly placed people who are not very competent in the government, I think that incompetents can be found in high positions in private industry, academia, the non-profit world and government! The government does not have a monopoly on this -- and the situation is no better and no worse in the government than the situation I experienced in academia (where many of my non-tenured colleagues had outpublished tenured people and where many of the tenured people were very bad teachers who didn't really care much about their students!).
As far as promotions go, you do have to be at one GS level for a year before you can be promoted to the next GS level and that can suck. On the flip side, just to contextualize some of what Russ was saying. Jumping a GS level can mean a serious salary increase. A GS 13 salary for someone in the DC area is $72,108. Jump to a 14 and your salary goes up to $85,210 so you are talking about a promotion which is about $13,000. Not bad for a yearly jump! For the DC salary levels, go to this website:
http://www.cpms.osd.mil/wage/
Salaries vary slightly according to the location (for example, a 14 in DC gets a higher salary than a 14 in Tulsa, Oklahoma).
Can people rise pretty quickly? That was my experience but you may find other people who say differently (and again, I think this varies from department to department and agency to agency).
As far as promotions go, the government does encourage continuing education and you can take courses which will help you to earn the promotion (I have taken courses at NIH where I work which have helped give me the credentials to make a jump -- these courses were paid for by our office and I did them during the work week).
US asks about tenure, relocation and transfers:
Even if one does not rise, is one ever tenured, the same way a professor can get tenure? Firing aside, would your job be safe from reorganizations, cutbacks, eliminations, etc.? What about transfers? Can you put down roots in an area, and assume you'll be allowed to stay, or is this more like the military and law enforcement spheres, where periodic transfers are normative?
Can a civil service federal government employee ever transfer from one agency to another? If so, will he be guaranteed the maintenance of his rank and salary, tenure status, etc.?
LV asks about the range of job locations and the likelihood of transfers:
Some federal jobs I'm considering are listed as having multiple location possibilities, and possible necessity of future transfers. How much does one's choice of initial location play into actually getting hired (i.e. if you say you'll go to any of 5 locations, are your chances of getting hired really better than if you say you're interested in only 2 locations)?
If you do land a job that has location transfer involved, how much choice do you really have, if you want to keep the job, of course? Are transfers, within the same agency, accompanied by GS level increases or other compensations, aside from relocation expenses?
Alexandra Lord discusses job security and transfers:
Safety of your job/tenure: Outside of academia, it is hard to find the equivalent of tenure --and so I would not apply this word to the situation of a federal employee. However, and I think Mark and Russ can answer this as well, I feel pretty comfortable as far as job safety goes. I may be wrong here but I thought someone once said that after three years, it would be difficult for the government to fire someone and if they reorganized or cutback an agency, I think that they would probably maintain some sort of similar position for you. When the government has cutbacks, they start by encouraging people who are near retirement to retire via buy-outs etc.
As far as transfers go, once one is in the "system" (i.e. has a federal job), it is pretty easy to get another federal job (see Russ' answer to this question). Sometimes people are "detailed" to another agency or department for a few months or even years. This is not a permanent transfer but rather a temporary one. I think that you can feel comfortable putting down roots and assuming that you will be allowed to stay. I work for (but am not a member of) the commissioned corps (a uniformed branch) of the Public Health Service and these people can be transferred but this group is unusual (if you work for the Public Health Service and are not in the commissioned corps, you cannot be transferred this way).
Mark Parascandola responds that job security is much better in the federal government than in civilian life:
I'm not sure exactly what the procedures or conditions are to get someone fired in government. However, there is as much job security working in government than in academia, and far more than in the private sector.
Alexandra Lord lists a website link for benefits, leave, health insurance and pay:
Our secretary just gave me this link to a website which may be helpful to people. It deals with benefits, leave, health insurance and pay for federal workers, specifically newcomers to the government. Here's the site:
http://www.fedweek.com/HotFreeNews/default.asp
Go to the section titled Benefits 101 on the left-hand side of the page and ask for the material to be sent to your email address.
Paula Chambers asks about aesthetics, pace, and collegiality:
Hi Speakers,
I have never worked for government and only known one person who has worked for government, so there's this fuzzy cloud of vagueness in my mind when I think about "government" and what it would be like to work there. However, I do have two brief impressions to relate.
Impression #1: When my boyfriend (now husband) worked for the state of Ohio, I was hired as a consultant to give the trainers in his division private coaching on their oral presentation styles. In the time I spent there, I noticed a few things: (1) extremely dull aesthetic atmosphere -- boring office, hardly any art anywhere. (2) Slow, relaxed pace. Nobody seemed stressed out, ever. They also didn't seem to have a sense of urgency about their work. Everything could wait until tomorrow or even next month. (3) Everyone was very pleasant to me and each other.
Impression #2: My current workplace in downtown Los Angeles is right next door to a building filled with city government offices. My co-workers and I often go to this building for lunch because they have a great cafeteria on the 5th floor where you can get good food really cheap. This cafeteria caters almost exclusively to city government workers, plus a few other locals like me and my colleagues who have discovered it. In the time I have spent there, I've noticed a few things: (1) extremely dull aesthetic atmosphere -- boring room, hardly any art anywhere. (2) Slow, relaxed pace. Nobody looks at their watch or appears terribly worried about getting back to work. (3) Everyone is very pleasant to me and each other.
What is the deal here? Can any of you shed light on why both of my brief exposures to "government" culture have yielded virtually the same impressions?
Paula Foster Chambers
WRK4US list manager
Russell Wyland responds that offices are uniform, pace varies with workload, and workers are pleasant to outsiders:
Thanks for the message...it made me chuckle.
As a general rule, government offices are somewhat dull. At NEH, we have cubicles with 6 foot walls. The office is beige and our modular furniture is a somewhat darker shade of beige. After ten years of begging, GSA (Government Services Administration) has finally agreed to paint our walls in historic (late Victorian) colors to match the architecture. Cubicles are decorated according to the occupants' tastes: I have a print of Thomas More (Hobein, I think) and a large Beirstadt in my office as well as a few photos of family, friends, and travel. No matter how big one's personality or how honed one's decorating skills, our office still looks like a boring office. I hope that others have a different environment. My office is by no mean unpleasant, it just isn't much of anything.
In the world of grant-giving, there are hectic and slow times. My deadline, for example, is May 1, and this is a rather hectic time for me; everything needs to be done ASAP. Those working on NEH Fellowships are frantically attending to details, answering last minute questions, etc., right now. At the same time, some of my colleagues are in their slow period right now. Do we ever have so much work that we need to stay late or take work home? Rarely (once or twice a year). I check my office email from home, but not much more.
I don't know of anyone who isn't pleasant to outsiders. Internally, however, we disagree and clash just like any other office. We also have a great deal of fun. Your impression that bureaucrats are calm and pleasant probably hides some of what goes on behind the scenes.
Now, your larger question: why have both of your brief exposures to "government" culture yielded virtually the same impressions? 1) GSA runs most government properties (at least in DC) and they design to keep things as middle-of-the-road as possible. Thus, physical places tend to be bland. This is the same impulse that drives people to paint the interiors of their houses in neutral colors before selling. 2) I don't agree that most government workers feel laid back to the point of not caring when things get done; I hope this wasn't really the case, only an impression. I find just the opposite. 3) Again, there is a high premium placed on being helpful and friendly to outsiders (our customers), but you shouldn't necessarily conclude that all is calm.
Alexandra Lord observes that offices differ by agency, pace depends on deadlines, and that friendliness relates to employee's role:
Hi Paula and everyone else:
Regarding the aesthetics of government offices...as Russ said, because GSA is the buying power for office furniture etc., there can be a lot of repetition in how offices look but there can also be difference between departments, office buildings etc. At NIH where Mark and I work, the offices do vary from building to building (NIH is a campus). I actually work off-site in a hideous 1960s office building. It's not that great but like almost everyone who works in this building, I've livened up my office with posters from an exhibit I did, health posters from the 1920s and so on. I actually work in an office with an incredible view (I'm on the 18th floor, overlooking the Maryland hills) and the large windows are my primary decoration! Our outer office has lots of old health posters from all over the world -- and it's always fun when a visitor stops by because they love to ask questions about them (is this because other offices are so bland?! I don't know!). I will say though' that my boyfriend's office -- he works for Labor -- is very bland. It was also surprising to me as he is a lawyer but he doesn't have a window (I often have to tell him what the weather is like!). My sister and brothers-in-law (lawyers at Justice) also have bland offices. Maybe that is a comment on lawyers (my brother, a lawyer, is the one person who does not work for the federal government in my family and his office is pretty bland)! But I'd say there is variation across the board.
Slow relaxed pace...hardly ever stressed out. Hmm...I'd say that depends on the period in which you are visiting our office! We have super hectic times and slow times. Unlike Russ, I can't really predict a slow period as a lot of our work is dependent on requests from people. When someone high up (in the Secretary's Office) requests us to do something, then, we are extremely busy and extremely stressed out (as was the case last month when I was working 12 hour days -- thankfully, I get comp time!). Unlike in academia, where an historian can and does carve out a small research niche/period, I have to answer questions on the entire PHS history (200 years) and pretty much all diseases (sometimes I can shove a disease off on a colleague at another institute but that's rare!). This means that I have often to become a rapid expert in a subject and that can be very stressful (as well as fun). For example, last month, I had to give a big presentation on influenza pandemics (not my thing) to people in the Secretary's Office. I actually had what is a long lead time (5 weeks) but I knew nothing about the disease and its history and my presentation was going to be given to some of the world's leading experts (biologists, physicians etc.) on the influenza virus. To say that I was stressed out was an understatement! I didn't visit the cafeteria nor did I leave my office much (only to run to our study at the National Library of Medicine). So, if someone were judging the stress level in my job by how I am in public spaces (I've come out of hibernation now!) they might think I am always relaxed etc. Within the office...hmmm...our secretary might give a different picture of me!
Plus, one other unique component of my job (although there are similar client agencies in the government), I see ourselves as supplying a unique (and often un-thought of) service to the government. It's really important that I remind people in PHS about our office and what we can do for them. This means that I have to be super friendly and out-going (this can sometimes be hard as I am shy). I'm lucky though because the people in the office of the Surgeon General (the hall on which we work) are really friendly. When I came here they all introduced themselves to me etc. I contrast this with when I worked at SUNY as a visiting professor. After 2 years in the very small history department (12 people or so), I moved out and a fellow history professor said to me "Hmm...I guess I should have introduced myself to you."
As for the pace and watching people at lunch...one other thing I noticed (and which I still find thrilling) is that I'll hear two people talking in what appears to a casual leisurely conversation and then when I begin to actually listen to what they are saying...sometimes it can be pretty cool (this may be because I often ride the elevator with people who do high level and serious policy work).
Mark Parascandola comments that environment varies by government branch, workload and position:
I think it's fair to say that on the whole the working environment in government is different than in the private sector. However, there is a lot of variation within government as well depending on the agency, workload, and job.
When I worked on a history of medicine exhibit for (then) Glaxo Wellcome a few years ago, their offices had contracts with companies that leased artwork and maintained lots of indoor plants. The artwork and plants were always well maintained and changed regularly. But since this was their Washington lobbying office, appearances counted for a lot.
In my building (a leased office building in Rockville), the environment varies from floor to floor and from one office to another. Some branches and divisions put up lots of artwork on the walls. Additionally, some groups are more stressed out than others.
I think the group I work with is extremely dedicated. Many of us work more hours than we are compensated for; not because we are required to but because there are things we want to accomplish (i.e. get papers published, organize conferences, etc). However, at the same time, people try to maintain a realistic view of what we can accomplish. In the private sector you can often throw money at something to get it done quickly, but in government there are strict rules about how money can be spent and what it can be spent on. Our goals often exceed what we are able to do in practice, but I suspect that's true of public health, medicine, and science in general.
FI adds a comment about government budget and decor:
Since I really don't know either I'll venture a guess. Unless there is government budget for art, the decor is provided by the workers. Generally taxpayers tend to object to frills (don't we --especially we who are "underemployed"?) Slow because if I hurry it may have to be done over by some new code OR the next one to handle it will reverse the decision? Pleasant maybe because the ones who made hiring choices brought in people who wouldn't make waves? I'm sure someone else can be more creative?
Topic: Job Availability at different agencies
EM asks about job openings at NEH:
I have one pressing question: are there jobs available at NEH? It may be more important to address this question before worrying too much about our prospective offices.
SN adds a comment about turnover:
Let me quickly second this.
There was nothing that irritated me more at my school's and professional association's "Alternative Careers for Ph.D.s" events than being presented with a bunch of happy, fulfilled, well-fed people in different areas, and hearing from them, basically, that they had the only job of that kind in existence; and while they were happy and prospering outside of academia, in order to get a job *like* the one they were currently enjoying so much, we would have to kill them. ;)
Russell Wyland responds that NEH has low availability now because of a lack of turnover but may have more in the future:
NEH is a small agency: about 150 full-time employees at all levels, about 90 positions are at the PhD level. It's also a nice place to work and, with the market for PhDs tight, there's not a lot of turnover. I suspect that we hire 8 or so PhDs per year across the entire agency.
With no new administrative money on the horizon, new FTEs are probably not forthcoming. That said, a significant majority of program officers are within five years of retirement so, perhaps, our hiring rate will increase.
Alexandra Lord tells subscribers to consider departments other than NEH:
As someone with a PhD in the humanities, I'm a little curious about the question of job openings at the NEH. Please do not think that a person with an advanced degree in the humanities is limited to working at the NEH. It may seem because Mark and I have weird cross-over type of degrees (history of medicine/philosophy of science) that one's opportunities are limited to the NEH if one has a PhD or MA in the humanities but, and I cannot stress this enough, this is not true .
To begin with, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Archives and the Smithsonian love to hire PhDs in the humanities (history, English, sociology, anthropology and foreign languages). But I know from my own experiences that you can and should look broadly -- at all government agencies. Look at jobs in the Treasury Dept, the DEA, Justice, Labor, and the CIA etc. because there are PhDs and MAs in all of these places who have a background/degree in the humanities.
Just to contextualize this: a friend of ours has a master's degree in Near Eastern Studies from Harvard and is an FBI agent (he did stuff dealing with Iraqi antiquities recently although I think from he what he says he normally does more FBI-ish stuff -- it's hard to tell because sometimes Danny says "I can't tell you that!" when we ask him about his work -- very irksome). Danny is also a naturalized American citizen (he's Argentinean by birth) which tells me a lot about how open the government is about hiring people with varied backgrounds and how varied their security clearances/checks must be (without knowing him, I would have assumed that his background which includes, briefly living in the Middle East as well being a citizen of a South American nation would have made it impossible for him to get a clearance).
What I am trying to say here is that: if you limit yourself to looking only at the NEH or even the CRS or the other humanities type of departments/agencies, then, you will not be very successful . It will, to be frank, come down to the business of having to kill someone to get their job. Yes, Mark, Russ and I have jobs we love but there are PhDs in the humanities all over the government; eliminating Mark, Russ and myself does not have to happen if you are to have a shot at a job in the federal government. There are roughly 900 historians who work for the government (with the job title: historian) alone and there are tons of other historians who work in jobs not defined as historian. If I had a PhD in a foreign language, I'd probably be able to come up with a similar example for PhDs in foreign languages...or anthropology...or sociology...or whatever. I mainly consort with PhDs in history so I know that field best (although I do occasionally go slumming with PhDs in philosophy in science such as MarkJ!!).
When I began searching for my job, I did not understand that the government hired historians so I did not set out with a rigid view of what I could do or where I could look. I applied for LOTS of jobs which drew on all the weird skills I had learned in graduate school (like most graduate students, I read, write and speak two foreign languages, I had a proven track record in research and writing -- two skills highly valued by the government etc. and I looked for jobs which required these skills). Sorting through the federal job registry takes time and effort -- so be prepared to search the site each week and to spend some time and effort on this.
If you are seriously interested in working for the government, think broadly and be open-minded. Go to the federal job registry and sort through the jobs on a weekly basis. Speak to people in different agencies and departments. Additionally, even if you are deeply wedded to the idea of working for the NEH or the Smithsonian or whatever, look at jobs in other agencies and departments as once you have a federal job, you are in the "system" and it is easier to find work at another agency or department.
Mark Parascandola seconds the suggestion that the subscribers think broadly and also advises them to use initiative and creativity to find a job:
To add to what Lexi said on this: I think finding a government job does require more initiative and creativity compared with the academic job circuit. Federal agencies don't generally advertise in the Chronicle of Higher Education or interview at national humanities conferences. So, it does take more investigative work, talking with people, and web searching to identify opportunities. And, as some previous postings stated, simply finding people to talk to about jobs in government can be challenging when you don't already know someone.
But there certainly are opportunities out there, albeit not always via the expected path. So I'd second Lexi's recommendation to search broadly across agencies.
BY asks about federal job listings and promising job titles for humanities PhDs:
Hello to all our panelists, and thank you for giving so generously of your time and insights this week.
A question -- following up on Lexi's point that there are federal government jobs beyond NEH. I remember a couple of years ago attending a session on "alternative careers" for history PhDs in which one of the panelists working for the federal government talked about various federal job titles that someone with historical training might search under when looking at federal listings. I recall, for example, that she suggested looking beyond "historian" at things like "policy analyst" or "public relations specialist" (I think these were some of the titles). Can any of you comment on the names/titles of federal jobs that might be especially promising for someone with a humanities (or in my case, history) PhD to look at when perusing those job listings?
Mark Parascandola responds that job titles vary by agency and offers examples from NIH:
Job titles will likely vary between agencies as well. NIH sometimes lists jobs simply as "Interdisciplinary", which may sometimes work in your favor. Here are two that are used a lot at NIH for people with advanced degrees doing policy work or scientific administration (not basic science).
Health Scientist Administrator
Health Science Policy Analyst
LN asks about jobs for psycholinguists and other unusual specialties:
Thank you all for your time. This discussion has been very informative and useful.
Following up on the previous question about federal job titles that are a good fit for humanities PhDs:
I wonder about jobs for a Psycholinguist. I see a lot of jobs advertised for Psychologists, but often they are seemingly aimed at clinical psychologists. I wonder about someone who is somewhere between psychology and linguistics: experimental more than theoretical, but not a psychologist in most people's understanding of the word. I know that this is a very specific question that likely concerns only me, so perhaps you could talk more generally about how one goes about finding out what the jobs are (or what job titles to look for) when searching the federal job listings, no matter what one's quirky specialty is.
Mark Parascandola responds with possible job examples at NIH:
I don't know of anyone with the title psycholinguist. However, there are a lot of researchers at NIH who are trained in psychology or communications. Depending on your interest, there might be opportunities to apply your skills in health behavior research.
SJ asks about jobs that are a suited for a political science PhD:
Does anyone have any suggestions for PhDs in political science (my area was 19th constitutional and judicial history)? A lot of the jobs out there seem to be for people who study international politics.
Also, the discussion of the federal work environment stirs up the image the famous (or infamous) phrase, "good enough for government work." Does any one have any comments?
Alexandra Lord advises applicants to define themselves broadly by listing their skills, matching them with job descriptions, and applying to job listings for public relations, editing, and analyst:
Sorry -- I was in a meeting yesterday afternoon and unable to reply to some of the comments and questions. I'll try to do so here.
First, I want to emphasize again and again the need to think broadly. If I had gone into my job interview (or even searched the federal job registry) and said "I am a British historian" -- I would have been doomed (I have always viewed myself as a British historian with a special interest in medical history NOT as a medical historian with a background in British history). You could argue the stretch I had to make was a small one and to some degree, it was. However, coming out of academia where I was told, as an 18 th century British historian, that I was not qualified to apply for 19 th century British history jobs, I did have to make a leap to convince my interviewer that I could do American history (I had not even done this as a minor field in graduate school). Ironically, one of the most important qualities that my boss was searching for was someone who could learn things quickly and who did not define him or herself narrowly (this goes back to my need to become an expert in influenza last month over a 5 week period -- he really needed someone who could say "okay, my dissertation was on 18 th century gynecology but I have the skills to become an expert on the 1968 flu pandemic."). He asked me point-blank during the interview "how quickly can you learn and become an expert in new subjects?" I did not realize it at the time (well, I suspected it!) but that -- not the questions and comments about my dissertation or the classes on medical history which I had taught -- was really what the interview was about.
Demonstrating flexibility and creativity -- not the narrow expertise you or I obtained in graduate school -- is what most employees want. They also love research skills and the ability to write well. All PhDs have these skills.
So, I'd suggest that you sit down and list all the skills you have (foreign languages, ability to write and publish, to research etc.) and then go to the federal job registry to look for jobs. The trick is finding a job which fits your skills and then writing a good KSA (I'd say the latter part is the hardest part if you haven't spoken to a federal employee about this). When I began searching the federal registry, I had been searching for a job in the private sector for 6 months without success. I began searching the federal job registry -- really searching (I often got a crick in my neck from scrolling through the listings) -- in February. In March, I saw this job. I applied for it. Interviewed in April. Got the offer in May and started work in July. In the brief period in which I searched for federal jobs, I found many that I could -- and did -- apply for. This was the first one that I interviewed for and when I got the offer, I dropped everything else.
BY's question is a great one. I have a couple of suggestions, drawn on what I looked at and the kinds of people I've met since beginning work here -- but do scroll through the list at least once and look at all the categories (this will probably take you an entire morning). First, PR people are used by the government (the Surgeon General has a speechwriter, for example, and she is a great researcher and writer). I also have a friend who does something for the Office of the Comptroller in PR (she's the person who speaks to the press); she began life as a reporter and her job requires her to write and speak well. These are skills which most PhDs have---write a KSA which emphasizes and demonstrates your skills in this area. So, look for PR type of jobs. Look for editing positions as well. Second, there are a ton of jobs (or were three years ago) under the category "analyst." These are researchers (basic graduate school skill). Often, analysts may be asked to speak a foreign language or to have an in-depth knowledge of a specific subject or foreign country or whatever (backgrounds which often fit with historians, sociologists, anthropologists, foreign language people etc.). Someone in the State Department recently told me that the CIA is primed to hire 900 new agents. PhDs can, should be and probably will be some of those people (I like the idea of smart and open-minded people who care about civil liberties working for the CIA!). From the little Danny (the FBI agent) has told me about his job, it sounds as though he spends most of his time doing research (he has also told me how to spot and lose someone who is tailing me so maybe he does that as well! J). He does a lot of research (he also speaks three languages and I often suspect that that is one of the reasons why he was hired).
In answer to SJ's question about jobs in 19 th century judicial matters, I'd strongly suggest that you define yourself more broadly -- see yourself as someone with research skills first. Then define yourself as someone with an especially strong understanding (base knowledge) of politics. You should apply for a broad range of jobs which call for someone with a background in political science. Defining yourself narrowly is not valued in the government and you may find an employer who likes your background in 19 th century judicial matters but who views it only as a springboard for learning about other areas. Apply for jobs which require a PhD in political science and think broadly about how to fit yourself into the category (here's where the KSA is GREAT -- as you can basically write a short essay [2-3 paragraphs] explaining how and why a background in 19 th century judicial matters will give you a broader understanding of political issues in general). You may find that because most PhDs see themselves so narrowly you will actually beat out your competition (you may also find that because most PhDs define themselves so narrowly, your competition will be insignificant).
To contextualize this: the House of Representatives is looking for an historian. They had 5 applicants so they have re-started the search. I was at the Organization of American Historians conference last month and I listened to American historians (all of whom would, with a little creativity and a willingness to be flexible, be qualified for the job), insist that they were unqualified for the position. Guess what: they were all qualified. The House historian will have to cover the entire history of Congress (aka all of American history) and look at all matters relating to legislation (that is an extraordinarily broad mandate). Anyone with any type of background in American history should be qualified for the job. But will they hire someone who says "well, I only know about and can only do work on the New Deal"? Nope. They want someone who knows how to think and work historically but most importantly, they want someone who is flexible and a quick study as well as willing to explore topics outside of her or his range of expertise.
Topic: Prospects for ABDs in Government
Hadass Sheffer asks about credentials and prospects for ABDs in government:
One of the questions that come up on this list from time to time is whether to complete a PhD or not, when insurmountable obstacles arise. Although the general consensus is that it's always better to finish, I do know we have a number of ABDs on this list. So...
It seems that like academia, government agencies are highly sensitive to the credential. What are the prospects for ABDs in government agencies? Would an ABD be as competitive as a PhD? More competitive than an MA? How would the lack of the credential affect salary and promotion? And how would you recommend an ABD "market" themselves on a government job application?
Russell Wyland comments the competitiveness of ABDs versus MAs and PhDs. He suggests strategies for ABD applicants to put a positive spin on their degree:
While working on my PhD, I often asked myself why I was going through it. The answer --and I hope the answer for most -- is because I was interested in the material. If one pursues a PhD to secure a job -- inside or outside the government -- it's the wrong reason. Finish your PhD because you love the subject.
What are the prospects for ABDs in government agencies? At NEH, most program officer positions are MA required and PhD preferred. Thus, ABDs would not rate as highly as someone with a PhD.
Would an ABD be as competitive as a PhD? In most cases at NEH, no.
More competitive than an MA? In most cases at NEH, yes.
How would the lack of the credential affect salary and promotion? There are a few long-time ABD program officers at NEH and they would have progressed much faster had they finished their degrees.
And how would you recommend an ABD "market" themselves on a government job application? Good question. Honestly, one of the problems with the designation "All But Dissertation" is that it suggests in people's minds that a person did not finish the job he/she began: confronted by the dissertation, a person quit. After all, few people go into graduate study with the goal of becoming ABD -- they want either a MA or a PhD. We all know, however, that people stay ABD for many many reasons and that the perception isn't really accurate. How does one get over this perception? I would suggest emphasizing one's ability to complete projects. If you anticipate finishing the degree, make sure that's clear. If you don't plan to finish, don't be shy about it. The worse thing one could do, I think, is not mention it, leaving it up to the hiring committee to construct a reason why it's ABD and not PhD. I would also spin it as a positive thing: instead of talking about ABD as falling short of the PhD, talk about it as work beyond the MA. Make it positive.
Hadass Sheffer asks about the progression of academics to government or corporate positions:
This question is for our guest speakers but also for the wider readership.
Do you feel that there is a more "natural" progression to a government job from academe than there would be to a corporate environment? The general atmosphere seems highly receptive to- and appreciative of PhDs, focus on providing services and promoting higher learning and research, not having to think about corporate bottom-lines and share-holder wealth, general job security, etc. So does it seem more inviting than other non-academic options? (Especially now that we understand better that working for the government does not necessarily equal working for whoever happens to be in the White House at the moment.)
Alexandra Lord responds that there is a more natural progression of academics to government jobs. She comments on the value of ABDs and the lack of awareness of status among federal employees:
I would definitely say that there is a more "natural" progression to a government job than to a corporate job for a bunch of reasons. I think that Hadass pointed some of them out --the business of not having to worry about corporate bottom-lines and general job security are definite components of this as is the issue of intellectual freedom (and the business of strongly valuing intellectual work). But I also think it's a great progression (or even, if you want, transition job) for other reasons.
Because the government values the PhD, they tend to be more understanding of the skills and abilities which PhDs lack (and yup, guys, PhDs do lack some skills!). The foundations and other corporate places where I looked for a job in 2000-2001 were all really concerned about the fact that I lacked basic skills such as the ability to manage a budget as well as the fact that I did not have what they viewed as a proven track record in managing projects in a timely fashion -- I had finished my PhD in 5 years (6 with my master's) so this last belief rather peeved me but it was hard for business people to understand that I could and did complete tasks quickly (to them, spending 5 years on one project seemed like a long time).
The government's main criterion for my job was a PhD and because the person who hired me has a PhD, he knew how to interpret my accomplishments/resume/skills. The corporate people with whom I spoke were often very nice and very supportive but I had to work very hard at getting them to understand my skills (and I'm not sure that they always understood those skills). My former boss understood and believed that he could quickly teach me (or I could learn) the office-type skills which are so important outside of academia. Corporate people just saw someone who lacked these skills.
Needless to say, this job has now given me the opportunity to learn managerial and office-type skills. I took courses in managing a budget etc. (you can take courses in this at the government's expense) and I have now demonstrated in an office setting -- over and over again -- that I can and always do complete projects in a timely fashion. I also manage a budget now -- a very concrete skill which very few academics have. I am really happy in my job and so I don't want to look elsewhere but if I do decide to look elsewhere I have now served my apprenticeship in office and managerial types of skills. In other words, if you want a corporate job, getting a government job could serve as a good transition.
Finally, the question of ABDs. If you are ABD, you can get a job in the government (same is true of MAs) but your ability to rise would probably be stymied somewhat by your lack of a PhD. The government values two things: work experience and education (they have a complicated system for evaluating these and weighing the two next to each other). Talking in general terms: I think that an ABD would have to have a few work years extra to compete with a PhD (on the flip side, finishing the PhD might take a few years so it might weigh out). In some jobs, I don't think you could be competitive without the PhD itself but this is job specific. Some jobs require a PhD; some don't. I know people at the Smithsonian, for example, who have PhDs and others who have just MAs. I don't know but I assume that there is a difference in pay between these people and I also assume, although I don't know this, that there is a difference in rank.
This, by the way, is another plus I find in working for the government -- I know the GS level of only three of my colleagues (and this is because one of the colleagues who is very concerned about this kind of stuff told me this -- she's unique in this obsession, I think). After academia where I knew who was tenured, who was not, who was a visiting professor, who was an adjunct etc. and where these ranks really impacted how people were treated, I like not knowing the different ranks people have because it means that when I walk into a meeting we are all treated in the same manner.
EY asks about preference for new hires or PhDs several years out of their degree, and about the importance of publications in hiring:
I was wondering if there's a preference in the government for freshly-minted PhDs or if it's better to have some non-academic work experience after finishing the PhD. My situation is that I'm living in Canada for the next couple years, likely working in the private/non-profit sector (government jobs here are scarce and most require fluency in French, which I don't have). I expect that I'll return to the States at some point down the road and see myself applying for jobs in government.
A related question is how important a publication record is. I remember one poster saying that some of the jobs at NEH value scholarly achievement. Is having a PhD without publications a bad thing when applying for jobs that deal with knowledge and/or policy analysis? Thanks for the great discussion!
Russell Wyland discusses the importance of experience, publications and newer PhDs in hiring:
I think Lexi mentioned the importance of experience in the hiring process so a PhD with a bit of experience in the workplace might have an edge. However, I've been on hiring committees that have been looking for "newly minted" PhDs...i.e. the rating criteria placed little weight on past work experience and more on past educational experience. Why would we want a recent PhD? Usually for money reasons. If we're told that we should try to hire at the GS12, that salary (at least at NEH) is more likely to be for a recent PhD.
Publications can only help...they never hurt. Different divisions place different emphasis on publications. In the Division of Research, for example, we try to hire people who fit the profile of our applicants. We receive applications from scholars who publish and, therefore, a good publication record will receive a few extra points during the hiring process.
I hope this helps.
Dear WRK4US,
It's Friday April 23 and I must say this has been a fabulous week. Speakers, subscribers, everybody did a super job of asking great questions and giving great answers. On behalf of the entire subscribership, I would like to express deep gratitude to our three wonderful speakers, Lexi, Mark and Russell. They shared very generously of their time, knowledge and experience, for which we are much in their debt. Thanks as well to those of you who asked questions and kept the discussion going. Way to go, everyone!
The next Guest Speaker Discussion will take place sometime in late spring or early summer, exact dates TBA. I will announce the topic when it has firmed up. Until then, you are free to use the list in whatever manner you choose as long as it is consistent with the list's purpose: to share information and encouragement regarding nonacademic careers for humanities, education and social science PhDs.
Happy exploring,
Paula Foster Chambers
WRK4US list manager