What Are You Going to Do with That Classics Degree?
John Tully on Alt-Ac Careers and Program Redesign
Today marks eminent historian Erich Gruen’s 85th birthday, and the inauguration of the Society for Classical Studies’ first annual Gruen Prize for graduate research on cultural interactions in the ancient Mediterranean. (Submissions are due October 9, and a matching gift will double donations toward the prize endowment.) Like his myriad students, I owe Erich more than I can enumerate: training in how to think, trenchant critique, warm support both professional and personal, years of mentorship that have turned into cherished friendship. But one of his most lasting gifts to me has been my friendship with John Tully.
I first met John thirteen years ago when he was a visiting graduate student at Berkeley. (At the time, we found each other mildly annoying. We still do, with the affection of Doktor-siblings.) Since then, John has gone from a PhD in Greek history to a career as a consultant, helping governments worldwide work better. He’s an expert in cultural interactions, not only intellectually but through his professional travels. He’s also become one of my dearest friends, which is how I sweet-talked him into consulting with me (for free!) about Classics: what our field does well in preparing us for jobs, and what we might do better in the post-corona future. Whether you’re a grad student, teacher, or dean, I hope you find his thoughts — lightly edited, below, for length and clarity — as valuable as I do.
Nandini: I’m curious: as you were finishing up your PhD, what was your decision-making process and what did the future feel like at that time?
John: The fourth year of my PhD, my second year at Princeton, I had a great year in Greece at the American School. I went around looking at different sites, met incredible colleagues, thought a lot about my dissertation — and then came back to the U.S. And on some level, you could say I had a mid-life crisis. I had to focus, I had to teach, I had to knuckle down and write. And right at the beginning of that academic year…. a friend mentioned they were applying for McKinsey and BCG. And I felt actually this is something that has always interested me. Why don’t I have a go?
Even as an undergraduate I was concerned about the question, “So what?” How do you somehow improve the way the world is operating [and] make peoples’ lives better? I didn’t see why my preparation as a classicist was any less applicable to answer those questions than anybody else. … It wasn’t that I didn’t think it wasn’t worthwhile being a professor. I loved the work I was doing … But I felt, wow, this is an opportunity to try something very different [knowing that] as we become older, it’s more difficult to switch careers. So I had a go. I applied and I went through the process and three months later was fortunate to get an offer.
Nandini: I can definitely sympathize with the anxiety of feeling like you’re caught on this conveyor belt of doom … You know how hard it is to be on the market. And then you go from job to job for a while until you find something secure. … So it’s nice to feel like you can step off that. And what I think is really helpful in your case is that you had this opportunity before you hit the end of the line. …
John: Absolutely. So for me I applied for BCG way too early. My supervisors all told me not to apply for the job market that year. They were totally right — I still had two years of funding and there was no reason to cut it short.. … The other thing I’d say is that BCG and many of these companies don’t provide more security, because it’s “up or out.” There are just many more companies like that in the world so overall there is more security. Because the business world is much larger than academia.
But that is an opportunity for us if we reconfigure how we think of our skill set. … The world is only small for us academics because we define success as getting a tenure-track job at preferably an Ivy League institution. … Specifically in my field, that means there’s a grand total of two jobs per decade that I could go for. So by the time you’ve narrowed down success that far, of course you’re setting yourself up to make it really challenging.
Nandini: Nowadays “alt-ac” jobs are at least part of the conversation, though faculty are often ill-equipped to [support students in getting them]. But [in 2012, when you graduated], how were people around you in your intellectual or advisor circle talking to you about your choice?
John: I was very fortunate. People in the department did say they were disappointed, but no one ever criticized me directly for the choice — they were all incredibly supportive. And on some level, frankly, it’s a good thing for the department … It’s a demonstration to future intakes that you can actually come and do Classics and end up in a successful career outside academia.
[And] there are so many good things that you get from a Classics education that I benefited from… Just to pick a couple of them: number one, the encouragement to think creatively, to explore … Number two, the supreme arrogance that we imbue in our undergraduates and graduates that our ideas matter, specifically in dialogue with others. [The] freedom and the power that we give young minds to think in that way is something that’s very, very special. Three, a broader perspective. … Whether it’s through reading amazing pieces of literature, or thinking through history, and asking, what is the perspective of the author? Or whether it’s looking at an archaeological artifact and thinking, what does this mean and how do we think it was used? All of that is just incredible. Then you have questions where the data is necessarily incomplete, in the way it is in reality. … “Transferrable skills” is a phrase that’s incredibly unsexy at the moment. But … on some level, I don’t care what you study, just enjoy it and love it. And that’s how you’ll grow as a person and help yourself and help everybody else around you. …
Nandini: Can you tell us more about what you do now, and [how] graduate programs do and don’t … prepare PhD students to step out into a variety of different careers, including ones like yours?
John: … What I do as an Associate Director at Delivery Associates is slightly different [from standard consulting, where a company hires short-term experts when it lacks experience in an area or suddenly needs extra capacity]. … I’m working to help government work better. Government is the most important force for good in the world, but at the same time, because it does so much, it has real challenges. Good policy is vitally important — but governments traditionally spend far too much of their time on what the policy should be, and not nearly enough on how to roll it out effectively. And that’s what we do in our company. … “Deliverology,” what we call it, is fundamentally a form of implementation science, or project management for governments … focused ruthlessly on what it takes to improve results for the people. What does it take to make government perform better, whether it’s in schools, helping children learn better, [or] hospitals, helping patients get better more quickly? …
One simple example: people love talking about big data. But it is easy to invest significant time on analyzing it and never thinking about what it means in action. So be really careful about what data you’re analyzing. Don’t only think about quantitative data. Think about qualitative data. Go and visit the hospitals and talk to nurses. That’s how you know what’s going on in the COVID emergency …. and then fold in how you actually use that data, in terms of monitoring and having effective routines that mean that you act fast and make sure problems don’t have the chance to explode. … Any time there’s a problem, people want to say, let’s have a meeting about this. We do the reverse. We flip it, and we say, what would it take for this to work? That’s what we do — and I love it.
Nandini: You’ve already outlined how Classics can help with this kind of problem-solving. But [as you] work on so many projects in different parts of the world, I’m curious: what things can’t Classics help you with?
John: It might be helpful to start with the positive. Leadership requires judgment and the ability to think. And what Classics and the humanities encourage you to do is read the evidence, come up with a judgment and argue it and reflect on it. Ideally with a certain humility that recognizes you’re part of a community and [leaves you] open to changing your mind. We like to think that science provides the answer. But … data is still only data. All of these probabilistic models are still only probabilities; you still need to make a decision. And that’s what the humanities encourages us to do: [to] look through reams of evidence, recognizing it’s incomplete data and recognizing [that] actually when the chips are down, we need to come up with a decision and articulate why it’s the case.
So that’s what Classics gives me. What Classics didn’t give me is speed. In terms of the ability to think on my feet about these things, and also the willingness to come up with a decision in four or six hours. … [A second thing it didn’t give me] is around oral dialogue. … Fundamentally, everything in academia, everything that counts, is around the end-of-term paper or the exam. It’s around writing, not around dialogue. Yes, [there are] lectures and discussions — but look at the grading. You get 5% for your presentation and it’s 55% for the end-of-term paper and 40% for the midterm. The way that we grade indicates what we value. And we value things that are written on paper at great length. We don’t have time in the real world to read 3000-word tracts… What more could we do in academia to value engagement, in terms of how we assess it, and to value people’s ability to present arguments and … reflect and learn from them?
Nandini: Honestly, I suspect … we don’t trust ourselves enough as faculty to process oral information and engage in spoken argument when we don’t have our books or internet right there [as a safety blanket]. I think that our paralyzing need to footnote everything at length actually comes from this insecurity that our ideas that might not have enough value on their own. … On top of that, one big difference with the work that you’re doing now is that actually, there are a lot more consequences if you get it right or wrong. In Classics, when we’re teaching, really the worst we can do is [not] do a good enough job preparing our students for some exam that we ourselves wrote … I mean, the stakes are just so much lower, right? If we fuck up, no one’s going to die.
John: The stakes are much lower, but also they’re much higher because we’ve personalized them. … Many professors understandably see themselves as experts. They think their role is to … provide answers. But that’s actually a very disempowering and less creative way of leading a group. … Imagine instead, if our role is actually more to inspire others — to make it possible for others to think, for them to connect the dots. … We worry about getting rid of lectures because we then say, how will we have value as faculty? [But] the flipped classroom is an amazing opportunity, both for individual teachers and the discipline to increase the amount and quality of the thinking and the influence that the discipline has in the broader intellectual milieu.
Nandini: Hopefully few of us think of ourselves as static repositories of knowledge. I don’t think that [we] could ever be replaced by books or [other technologies], because so much of [our value lies] in interaction, and we’re feeling that loss sorely right now as we’re shifting online. [But] Classics is as usual wringing its hands about its future. We’ve been in dire straits now for decades, there’s constant talk about how we need to change the field. And now we have this real, global crisis in higher ed. So if this is a consulting problem, how would you fix Classics?
John: I don’t think Classics, big picture, is in dire straits. I don’t know the exact figures but I’d bet — OK, so maybe there are fewer students studying Latin now than there were in the 1970s, though actually, I doubt it on a global scale — but in terms of the number of people engaging meaningfully in some sort of undergraduate education in the Classics, I bet you it’s higher than it’s ever been. Lots of us like to tell the story of ongoing decline. That’s why we love Rome so much: Rome somehow managed to decline since the moment it was founded yet somehow still ended up with a massive empire. It’s a bit like that in terms of the discipline.
Nandini: My only conclusion is, we like to feel under attack. We like to feel like the world is ending. Classicists have been complaining for centuries about the state of the field.
John: And the truth is, in the past … we did have independent scholars who were wealthy and that’s why they could afford to spend their entire life producing the one book that they did. But that’s not the sign of a healthy discipline. That’s the sign of someone who has significant entitlement and various landed estates. And that’s wonderful for him, but it’s not necessarily the norm that we want to go back to. … Actually, I bet you on some level, the quality of language teachers in any of the top 50 universities in America is higher than it was 20, 40, 60 years ago.
What they don’t do now is have the field to themselves. And that’s a good thing. It’s healthier that now when we think Classics, we … also think of people who do archaeology, data, digital humanities, all that sort of stuff. It’s a more messy picture. It’s also a more fun and inspiring one. So this isn’t a story of decline. It’s a story of how do we keep the discipline evolving and growing in a way that it has over the past 40 years. … The reason why Classics is such a thriving discipline is because it hasn’t just said we are languages, full stop. It’s said, no, this is about the civilization. We’re going to take a French total-history approach and make it essential to what we do as a discipline. And that’s fantastic, and that’s why we succeed. There’s lots more we can do over the years ahead, but it’s not a discipline in crisis at all.
Nandini: Well, that’s reassuring. I do wonder though whether there are any redesigns that you think would work and would help not just the field, but people in the field.
John: So two really practical things we could do. Lots of my work fundamentally comes down to helping governments to be really clear what they think “good” looks like in a particular area and how we’re going to communicate that. And importantly, how far we want to specify at the center what “good” looks like and how much we leave it up to the imagination of teachers, healthcare workers, you name it. Why does that matter? I think that as an issue, this comes back to the “canon.” First, the way we allocate time and structure our courses. I think in my time [reading Greats] at Oxford, we still had to read all 24 books of the Iliad, which was amazing, but it meant we didn’t have time for other things. And there’s a sense in America where we say “this is Greek myth” …. so we’re going to focus on Greek myths in that period. … But we’re no longer in a position where in a four-year course people are going to be spending the majority of their time in our discipline. And so we need to be thinking much more carefully about how each individual module provides an opportunity for people to be clear about how they communicate, how they express their thoughts, and what this means in terms of broader engagement.
The second [problem]: too many short exams and the fetishization of writing and assessment. There’s actually very little you can do or express in one hour. … How can we rethink our exams to encourage creativity? What could we do by assessing the quality of people’s interaction in class, as about 40% of the mark and not 5%? Those are the big bold things that … we could do very short-term [and] would be really powerful in terms of changing the way that we engage with our students — and actually making our lives much easier as faculty. If we’re doing fewer exams, that means we can spend more time with our students, engaging with them; that means we can spend more time on our research, thinking creatively and bringing that into the classroom. And that’s good for us, good for the students.
Nandini: Oh, but that would mean change, John. Then we would have to pay attention to our students and spend time listening to them. It’s a lot harder. People don’t even take attendance on a daily basis because it’s so much simpler for them logistically, or because relying on a couple exams is the way it’s always been.
John: If I’m teaching Roman or Greek myth for three one-hour sessions a week and it’s a twelve-week course — I mean, it’s difficult writing 36 hours of lectures, but at least I can go and know I’m fine in the moment and no one’s going to call me out. If I have to lead 36 hours of discussion meaningfully, breaking them into groups, thinking about how I’m keeping every student engaged — my God, that is a whole different level of work. It’s exhausting. How could you ever say that faculty members are not needed? That’s so much more work than lectures, and so much more worthwhile and fun.
Nandini: What do you think the point should be of a Classics degree? Do you think there’s still a need for PhD programs, in this world where nurses and contact tracers and data analysts are so needed for the serious work of keeping us alive?
John: Yes. I’d say there are many other reasons for studying Classics, but one way people grow [and develop basic skills] is by finding something they love and really focus on. … So we need structures where we say, wow, you’re interested in dance. We’re going to fund you to go and study dance for two years in a really effective way. That then means that you will be set up to be a functioning adult, whether you want to be a contact tracer, or a nurse, or you actually want to continue being a dancer. Because … with the exception of things like being a surgeon — and even in medicine there are real variations — the amount of time it takes to gain professional skills is actually quite low. What takes time is the practice and the mental preparation. And that you don’t need to do inside the discipline.
[For] members of the profession, of course, there are concerns about our relevance and our size. We’re never going to be a huge discipline, but that’s fine. Our role on some level is to support and maintain this path for people who are going on and doing amazing other things. As part of that, I wouldn’t get rid of PhD programs. I would reform some in terms of the focus. But they’re really valuable as a way for people to think and be creative. The truth is that … the echt researchers are probably only 20% of the people we need in higher education. So [in addition to] more traditional PhD programs … let’s take advantage of the fact that our other programs are more focused on teaching, and make that a positive thing rather than less prestigious. Because they will generate better teachers. Let’s think about whether they need to be quite so long and what other skills [we] should be focusing on in making effective creators of digital content, effective communicators. …
[We could also provide] different pathways instead of saying the only way to stay inside the discipline is if you do a PhD or a post-doc. What if we actually sponsor you to be, for example, the Classics librarian, rather than handing you over to the library studies department … And we’re going to consider that a practical and valuable use of Classics. Now for the discipline, that has huge advantages in terms of relevance, and also in terms of funding and positioning inside the university.
Nandini: I’m all for this kind of redesign and a better division of labor to reflect actual needs. [But] there’s a lot of tunnel vision … [and] a really blinkered view of what success looks like. What about all those PhD students who are warily looking at the economy and the hiring freezes that are already happening? How would you advise them to think about future careers?
John: There’s a real fear that “if I am seen to be looking outside, it will be noticed and my faculty will give up on me and they won’t invest in me. I cannot be seen to be anything but 100% committed.” And I get that, and that’s something that all of us have to work through. … So, first, where possible, I would encourage people to talk to their supervisors early … Because our supervisors are also human, and there is a sense in which we are a mini-them, and they want us to invest in [traditional academic careers] because that’s what they did. But they do also care about us. And for us to say, “[Classics] is something I’m really keen on … [but] I think I’ll be more able to do that if I’m more secure about what other options I have, and can you help me look through that?” Having that conversation earlier, I think, will be emotionally and practically healthier for students doing that PhD. Always get ahead of the story, so they don’t start second guessing.
Second — and this just my own perspective — be bold. Flip the question. Why can’t you do something? As we said earlier, Classics gives you really good judgment. It gives you … real analytical focus, and the ability to be creative; it gives you the ability to look really closely at a tiny bit of detailed data, put that in context, and then come up with a big-picture conclusion. And that’s incredibly valuable. It also gives you the ability to communicate with people and persuade. So have some confidence in your abilities.
The third is, start earlier. … Just talk to people. People are normally willing to give you 15 minutes of their time. Even if you think you have nothing to say to them, just go with a couple of simple questions and listen. One, can you tell me what inspired you to choose X job? Two, can you help me understand why you keep doing it? Three, what’s exciting you at the moment about your job? Simple questions like that. Keep it short, not so much to protect their time, but to protect your own. Because all you’re doing is thinking, “Is this something I want to be able to look into?” You can do that through your careers department. But the problem with that, of course, is you go, you spend an hour listening to someone give a pitch for that company. If I had a choice, I would much rather have four 15-minute conversations with people who were just talking to me …. And there’ll be that personal connection which means that we could then follow up.
Nandini: Well, I think talking to you is far more useful — because as we were saying, professors are sadly often the least equipped to advise the many students who do not get that “professor” job, [especially now that] academia as we know it is in flux.
John: There’s a really simple tool in my work called the “delivery chain.” …. Essentially, imagine I am a dean, or prime minister: who do I need to work with to change X behavior in a classroom or Y outcome for hospital patients? It’s really relevant to the issue we have in academia of this division between Classics departments and careers services. … Clearly as professors we’re really busy, [so] we outsource most career advising. The problem is that then we don’t have that knowledge. We’re the people doing the day-to-day support for our students, yet we’re not able to provide them that fuller picture. We also confuse our students. There’s a real issue when you say to first-years, my job as a professor is to prepare you for Classics; anything else, go to that building over there. We’re fundamentally undermining our students’ preparation both for Classics and for outside Classics.
Simple question: what would it take for professors to feel 50% more comfortable talking about the options for their students outside the discipline? Instead of one careers advisor [counseling] 60 graduate students, it would be much healthier for … five Classics professors to [be able to give career advice to] 60 graduate students. … We would have one communication chain that goes through their professors rather than bypassing them. We would avoid having students in emotional doubt that they’re doing something bad. The careers office supports the professors and then only tactically gets involved when students are … actually applying for [jobs] and need detailed advice around CVs and cover letters and specific skills.
Nandini: I really like that. It’s of course easy to see why professors might not want other sources of authority or jobs to be invading their domains. They don’t want little Pied Pipers whispering in the ear of grad students that there might be some other future beyond putting all their eggs in this basket. I think non-Ivy grad programs [like my own] could actually be real leaders here, because we want our students to have jobs and we know that not everyone is going to be able to compete with names like Harvard or Princeton or Berkeley [that you and I were fortunate to have on our CVs].
One of my big questions throughout this whole crisis has been, how does change happen? And talking to Joy Connolly today [in a conversation we’ll share on Eidolon next week], sometimes we have to just do things on a very individual level. So it’s wonderful of people like you, who care, to come and talk to our students and plant these seeds and shorten the delivery chain. I really think that this is a change that’s within our grasp and doesn’t need to wait years to happen. … It’s invaluable to have your insight as someone who’s found a successful path that has taken full advantage of everything you got from your classical training, but expanded it in rich and unexpected directions. I’m sure our readers will be delighted for your time. As am I.
John Tully and Nandini Pandey wish a happy birthday to Erich Gruen, and many more! Here’s to everyone who brings people together, and to being together again before too long.
