What remains of the intl development field

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious about the advice not to enter a grad program in the next few years. My college sophomore is interested in global health — if she entered a masters in fall 2028, she would be done in 2030. Won’t most people have given up and found new fields by then? It seems like at some point at least some of this work will come back and they will have to hire up. I think almost everyone thinks this was a colossally stupid thing contrary to long term U.S. interests so I would think even a R admin would bring back some of it.

I teach (adjunct) for an mph program in dc and our enrollment is down to almost 1/2 of what it was at its peak a few years ago. The market got saturated with mph grads post pandemic and now there are even fewer positions. Seeing recent grads taking jobs as teachers or in other fields. I was also global health before and its worse if that is your focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International health is different than international development. I am not saying they have not been impacted, but I would not discourage a young person from entering that field.

I would absolutely discourage any young person from getting an (expensive) degree with the intention of getting a job in the public or nonprofit sector. International health is a fine goal, but the way to go about it is to get some hard skills in actual healthcare (MD, RN) or a related field (engineering, construction, logistics) and then use that to get internships and experience in international settings. Sorry but the world does not need more MPHs or SAIS grads.

I’m not disagreeing with you but it seems like the field also will need people with statistical and data analytics skills. I’m just thinking about things like Ebola or the next pandemic. You need doctors to treat it and researchers to develop treatments and vaccines but you also need the folks with the data skills to project where and how it will spread, etc. I thought that’s what the public health degrees were for. It seems like without lupine people developing these skills we will be screwed for the next pandemic, no?

Absolutely but I’m not sure that’s what the average MpH gets you. That’s more for degrees like biostatistics.

You can get an MPH in biostats… agree though, make sure you are taking the mph program/ classes that give you these skills and experiencea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International health is different than international development. I am not saying they have not been impacted, but I would not discourage a young person from entering that field.

I would absolutely discourage any young person from getting an (expensive) degree with the intention of getting a job in the public or nonprofit sector. International health is a fine goal, but the way to go about it is to get some hard skills in actual healthcare (MD, RN) or a related field (engineering, construction, logistics) and then use that to get internships and experience in international settings. Sorry but the world does not need more MPHs or SAIS grads.

I was impacted by the destruction of USAID, and most of my colleagues are still unemployed. The ones who weren’t in the DMV are landing best, as their local markets aren’t flooded with former Feds and development workers. They have mostly ended up with interesting jobs in state or county public health departments, associations, or disease-specific research and advocacy groups.

But I’d like to address the perception that an MPH is soft or useless. Do you want people who understand data and epidemiology to make policy and develop strategy for your city/county/state? Do you want someone who actually has studied human behavior and its drivers to guide communication and support for rational GLP1 rollouts? If so, you want people with MPHs. Physicians and nurses often make really poor strategists - they need to be retrained out of thinking at the individual level in order to think at the population level. It can be more direct and effective to train people for the skills you want - that’s what an MPH can do.

That said, I wouldn’t go get an MPH right now. The market is flooded with folks like me with a gazillion years of experience, and we’ll be monopolizing the available jobs, even entry level ones, for another 5-10 years. I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t encourage a young person to take that risk.

NP, and definitely not ok with the destruction of usaid. But the MPH is not a degree where I'd trust graduates with data. Limited math prerequisites, programs with no GRE requirements. In general, the stats is superficial and so is the programming, and it has to be if you're not filtering on math ability or experience. It's "run a regression" type stats, unless you are doing a specific concentration that's more quantitative.

Right, you don’t hire an MPH as a researcher. Maybe to help clean data and do the scut work of data analysis, but you don’t hire them to design studies, instruments, or set up the analysis.

However, you hire them to take the results of the study and envision what to do with it. What does it MEAN? My researchers could all tell me in great detail about the results of a study, but could not necessarily envision the best behavior change intervention, or policy changes and how to achieve them. PhDs are all about the trees, and MPH are about the forest. Sure, there are people that can do both. But the MPH-trained program manager, strategist, or leader has their place, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International health is different than international development. I am not saying they have not been impacted, but I would not discourage a young person from entering that field.

I would absolutely discourage any young person from getting an (expensive) degree with the intention of getting a job in the public or nonprofit sector. International health is a fine goal, but the way to go about it is to get some hard skills in actual healthcare (MD, RN) or a related field (engineering, construction, logistics) and then use that to get internships and experience in international settings. Sorry but the world does not need more MPHs or SAIS grads.

I was impacted by the destruction of USAID, and most of my colleagues are still unemployed. The ones who weren’t in the DMV are landing best, as their local markets aren’t flooded with former Feds and development workers. They have mostly ended up with interesting jobs in state or county public health departments, associations, or disease-specific research and advocacy groups.

But I’d like to address the perception that an MPH is soft or useless. Do you want people who understand data and epidemiology to make policy and develop strategy for your city/county/state? Do you want someone who actually has studied human behavior and its drivers to guide communication and support for rational GLP1 rollouts? If so, you want people with MPHs. Physicians and nurses often make really poor strategists - they need to be retrained out of thinking at the individual level in order to think at the population level. It can be more direct and effective to train people for the skills you want - that’s what an MPH can do.

That said, I wouldn’t go get an MPH right now. The market is flooded with folks like me with a gazillion years of experience, and we’ll be monopolizing the available jobs, even entry level ones, for another 5-10 years. I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t encourage a young person to take that risk.

I don’t think most 2-year long MPH programs teach any of what you listed with any kind of depth. So yes, I would prefer that an MD who moved into administration make public health decisions. Not MPHs who don’t actually care to understand the risks and benefits and just want to lecture everyone to breastfeed or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International health is different than international development. I am not saying they have not been impacted, but I would not discourage a young person from entering that field.

I would absolutely discourage any young person from getting an (expensive) degree with the intention of getting a job in the public or nonprofit sector. International health is a fine goal, but the way to go about it is to get some hard skills in actual healthcare (MD, RN) or a related field (engineering, construction, logistics) and then use that to get internships and experience in international settings. Sorry but the world does not need more MPHs or SAIS grads.

I was impacted by the destruction of USAID, and most of my colleagues are still unemployed. The ones who weren’t in the DMV are landing best, as their local markets aren’t flooded with former Feds and development workers. They have mostly ended up with interesting jobs in state or county public health departments, associations, or disease-specific research and advocacy groups.

But I’d like to address the perception that an MPH is soft or useless. Do you want people who understand data and epidemiology to make policy and develop strategy for your city/county/state? Do you want someone who actually has studied human behavior and its drivers to guide communication and support for rational GLP1 rollouts? If so, you want people with MPHs. Physicians and nurses often make really poor strategists - they need to be retrained out of thinking at the individual level in order to think at the population level. It can be more direct and effective to train people for the skills you want - that’s what an MPH can do.

That said, I wouldn’t go get an MPH right now. The market is flooded with folks like me with a gazillion years of experience, and we’ll be monopolizing the available jobs, even entry level ones, for another 5-10 years. I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t encourage a young person to take that risk.

NP, and definitely not ok with the destruction of usaid. But the MPH is not a degree where I'd trust graduates with data. Limited math prerequisites, programs with no GRE requirements. In general, the stats is superficial and so is the programming, and it has to be if you're not filtering on math ability or experience. It's "run a regression" type stats, unless you are doing a specific concentration that's more quantitative.

Right, you don’t hire an MPH as a researcher. Maybe to help clean data and do the scut work of data analysis, but you don’t hire them to design studies, instruments, or set up the analysis.

However, you hire them to take the results of the study and envision what to do with it. What does it MEAN? My researchers could all tell me in great detail about the results of a study, but could not necessarily envision the best behavior change intervention, or policy changes and how to achieve them. PhDs are all about the trees, and MPH are about the forest. Sure, there are people that can do both. But the MPH-trained program manager, strategist, or leader has their place, too.

lol to do things like make up the 6-ft rule and keep schools closed during COVID? No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International health is different than international development. I am not saying they have not been impacted, but I would not discourage a young person from entering that field.

I would absolutely discourage any young person from getting an (expensive) degree with the intention of getting a job in the public or nonprofit sector. International health is a fine goal, but the way to go about it is to get some hard skills in actual healthcare (MD, RN) or a related field (engineering, construction, logistics) and then use that to get internships and experience in international settings. Sorry but the world does not need more MPHs or SAIS grads.

I was impacted by the destruction of USAID, and most of my colleagues are still unemployed. The ones who weren’t in the DMV are landing best, as their local markets aren’t flooded with former Feds and development workers. They have mostly ended up with interesting jobs in state or county public health departments, associations, or disease-specific research and advocacy groups.

But I’d like to address the perception that an MPH is soft or useless. Do you want people who understand data and epidemiology to make policy and develop strategy for your city/county/state? Do you want someone who actually has studied human behavior and its drivers to guide communication and support for rational GLP1 rollouts? If so, you want people with MPHs. Physicians and nurses often make really poor strategists - they need to be retrained out of thinking at the individual level in order to think at the population level. It can be more direct and effective to train people for the skills you want - that’s what an MPH can do.

That said, I wouldn’t go get an MPH right now. The market is flooded with folks like me with a gazillion years of experience, and we’ll be monopolizing the available jobs, even entry level ones, for another 5-10 years. I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t encourage a young person to take that risk.

NP, and definitely not ok with the destruction of usaid. But the MPH is not a degree where I'd trust graduates with data. Limited math prerequisites, programs with no GRE requirements. In general, the stats is superficial and so is the programming, and it has to be if you're not filtering on math ability or experience. It's "run a regression" type stats, unless you are doing a specific concentration that's more quantitative.

Right, you don’t hire an MPH as a researcher. Maybe to help clean data and do the scut work of data analysis, but you don’t hire them to design studies, instruments, or set up the analysis.

However, you hire them to take the results of the study and envision what to do with it. What does it MEAN? My researchers could all tell me in great detail about the results of a study, but could not necessarily envision the best behavior change intervention, or policy changes and how to achieve them. PhDs are all about the trees, and MPH are about the forest. Sure, there are people that can do both. But the MPH-trained program manager, strategist, or leader has their place, too.

Agree with the above, though the problem is that this is so variable between individuals, which is one of the risks of the MPH degree. I have worked with MPHs who are brilliant and have proven track records of majorly improving implementation of public health programs; I have worked with others who clearly just got the degree because they couldn’t figure out what else to do with themselves.

Recently I have urged my mentees with only-MPHs to use results-oriented tech resumes as their guides for reformatting their CVs in the current job market, focusing heavily on metrics and impact of their work. E.g. “ran a smoking cessation outreach program with more than XYZ number of participants;” “increased clinic traffic by Z%.” I have also encouraged them to maintain portfolios (again, like in the tech world) where they can show specific high-quality analyses or health comms products they’ve developed.

There are lots of tweaks like this that can help truly experienced individuals differentiate themselves but they have to be really proactive about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

My friends in non-US NGOs have had to implement massive layoffs around the world. Loss of USAID funding is straining resources everywhere else as agencies seek to replace those funds with funds that are being used by other NGOs. Ripple effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

My friends in non-US NGOs have had to implement massive layoffs around the world. Loss of USAID funding is straining resources everywhere else as agencies seek to replace those funds with funds that are being used by other NGOs. Ripple effect.

The US government is/was a substantial funder to multilateral organizations. Those organizations are definitely having to cut staff. And many European governments have also cut their funding for foreign assistance. The problem is much bigger than just USAID cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

[Anonymous]

I hear Chevron is planning to develop some oil rigs in Venezuela soon. Try applying there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Someone whose goals are to actually help people abroad would humbly develop skills to actually help them, instead of trying to become a 4th rank bureaucrat in the foreign aid industry …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Someone whose goals are to actually help people abroad would humbly develop skills to actually help them, instead of trying to become a 4th rank bureaucrat in the foreign aid industry …

People employed in international development have skills in a range of disciplines, that could include data analysis, public health, logistics, finance, and program management. Plus they need to have the critical thinking skills that you clearly lack.