Five sobering job search lessons I learned from analyzing the global health job market

This is the second part of a three-part series the IH Blog will feature this week called Global health career insights: Lessons on the job market, how to crack it, and what to do once you’re in.


One “global health career beginnings” story that has stuck with me over the years was one that was shared at the International Health Careers panel discussion put on by the Section at APHA’s 2011 Annual Meeting. The panelist explained that he got his start in global health because he and his wife were hopeless idealists who wanted to provide health care to the poorest. In true 60s hippie spirit, the two of them climbed into their Volkswagen after he finished medical school and drove from Germany to Morocco by way of the Bosphorus to volunteer their services through an order of nuns who were providing care and support to the locals. “Of course,” he chuckled, “you can’t do that anymore.”

Nearly every career path story I hear from the global health professionals that are now approaching retirement is woven with the same frustrating thread.

You might say I failed at landing my “dream job” in global health. Unlike many well-established and highly experienced global health professionals of the Baby Boomer generation, I have wanted a career in global health since I was earning my MPH back in 2007. However, despite being the child of a first-generation immigration, being fluent in both Portuguese and French, having top-notch grades, and slowly working my way through increasingly advanced public health jobs in the U.S. over the years, dozens (if not hundreds) of applications for positions with global health and international development government agencies, government contractors, and non-profits have gone unanswered. An application to the Peace Corps went nowhere. After a while, I gave up. I taught English in South Korea to gain international work experience and started doing consulting and freelancing instead. That turned out to be a much more fruitful avenue: I have since been able to work with DAWNS Digest and on a climate change mitigation project in China, which turned into a book. Eight years after getting my MPH, I love what I do, but I’ve never actually occupied a “typical” global health job.

It’s possible that my job profile is worthless from an international perspective and I am simply unaware of that fact, but I doubt it. (In fact, I’ve been assured otherwise by multiple global health professionals and recruiters.) I began to suspect that the rosy picture being painted for me and other aspiring global health professionals by seasoned global health experts – that all that is needed for a career in global health besides some technical public health knowledge is an adventurous spirit and basic cross-cultural adaptability – was missing the mark. Out of hundreds of global health job vacancies I have scrolled through over nearly a decade, many call for a career’s worth of highly specialized technical knowledge. I began to wonder what the job market for global health graduates really looked like, and whether a simple willingness to “establish trust,” “practice humility,” and “respect the culture” were enough to break into that elusive technical advisor role. That was why we launched the Global Health Jobs Analysis project last year. We are finalizing the results for a manuscript this spring, but we presented initial findings at last year’s APHA meeting – results that pose a sobering counterpoint to the typical career advice presented to aspiring global health professionals.

1. The current global health job market looks completely different now than it did 25 years ago. Of the 1,007 distinct private-sector jobs captured by the analysis over six months, 75% were at the manager (median 5 years of relevant experience required), technical expert (6 years), or director level (8 years). Only 10% of jobs were considered entry-level. For overseas positions, that number is even smaller (6%). The difference on the supply side is staggering as well. Graduate training programs in global health have exploded in the last ten years, right along with the cost of university tuition. Now the applicant pool doesn’t just consist of anyone who happens to walk through the door – managers have their pick of tens of thousands of job applicants who can submit their resumes online. Valuable career advice should start with tips on how to get your resume through the screening software and in front of a pair of human eyes.

2. Front-door entry to global health jobs in the US government is all but impossible. At the Global Health Diplomacy session at last year’s APHA meeting, James Kolker, Assistant Secretary at the US Office of Global Affairs, admitted that no DHHS agencies had an entry mechanism or career path for global health professionals. Our analysis of federal jobs corroborates this: of the 123 global health-related jobs posted by the federal government during data collection for the analysis, none were open to master’s-level graduates (GS-9). 81% were GS-13 level or higher; for USAID, that figure went up to 85%. Anything higher than a GS-11 essentially requires at least a year of previous experience in a government agency, which means that these jobs are only accessible to those already on the inside. Also, many federal public health agencies rely on highly competitive fellowship programs as recruiting mechanisms and entry points. GHFP serves as one such mechanism for USAID. Of the 25 fellowship positions the program posted during data collection, all but 3 were for technical experts, with a median of 10 years of relevant professional experience required.

3. You have to be in the area and know someone on the inside. One hiring manager for Chemonics, USAID’s largest contractor (who, incidentally, got fined for discriminatory hiring practices last year), told me that he and most of the other managers in his division would not bother looking at submitted resumes that did not have a local address. Virtually all CDC recruiters I have talked to are reluctant to even interview someone outside of Atlanta. USAID and CDC in particular are increasingly turning to contractors to manage global health projects (which are typically short-term) and find technical experts to lead them. As with most other sectors, the best way to get in is to know somebody on the inside. Recruiters for these contractors tend to hire people they have previously worked with, many of whom are retired agency employees, which creates a “revolving door” with a limited group of professionals. Put another way by AidLeap:

Sadly, a lot falls down to who you know and/or luck. Many colleagues have told me they were in the right place at the right time, or that someone they knew from a previous job had helped them out. It’s wrong and I find it a very difficult pill to swallow, however, it is the reality.

4. The international development field, including global health, rewards unpaid work – and thus favors the wealthy. A lot has already been written about this by Gen-X development professionals who tend to be more forthcoming about the difficulties in breaking into this kind of career. Alanna Shaikh has touched on this issue in her own experience, explaining, “International development is a brutally competitive field to get into…If your heart is set on [it], then be prepared for a lot of unpaid jobs before you find one with a salary.” Similarly, Chris Blattman admits, “Be prepared to volunteer your first couple of jobs. The paid opportunities will come in droves, but only after you distinguish yourself from the mass of inexperienced undergraduates who want to work abroad. Offer to work for free, and consider paying your own airfare over to look for opportunities.” The trouble with this reality is that it favors people who have outside financial support (read: wealthy parents) and/or no student loan debt. An intense spotlight was shone on this fact with the story of the UN intern who found himself living in a tent on Lake Geneva. There is a tragic irony in the fact that careers in a field devoted to helping the poorest are largely inaccessible to those who are not wealthy.

5. We’re supposed to be putting ourselves out of business, anyway. There is a good reason that the number of entry- and mid-level jobs in global health and development projects is shrinking – those jobs are now occupied by citizens of the countries those projects are meant to benefit. Frankly, this is how it should be. We want low- and middle-income countries to take the lead on their own development. Unfortunately, this leads to a natural “aging” of the global health professional in demand, as the spots remaining to be filled are those requiring many years of targeted technical experience for a given project. All this has combined to make global health a murderously competitive field for American MPH grads.

Cultural competency and playing well with others are incredibly important in global health, and any career advice should emphasize those skills. But those lessons learned come in handy after you land the global health job. The student and ECP members of the IH Section, who make up nearly half of our total membership, will need more than just cultural competency and a listening ear to be able to land work as global health technical advisors. My hope is that the results and insights from the Global Health Jobs Analysis will help them to build careers that will eventually land one of those elusive, increasingly competitive “dream jobs.”


These are difficult realities to confront, and may make entry into the global health profession seem out of reach. Don’t despair! There is still room in this field for dedicated professionals, but cracking that “dream job” takes some strategic planning. Please stay tuned for the final part of this series, “Five practical career development suggestions to position yourself for the global health profession.”

Finally, a #humanrights win for #HIV in Korea

Note: This was cross-posted to my own blog.


Seven years after it dismissed initial complaints against the South Korean Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) policy of mandatory HIV and drug tests for foreign English teachers, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) has (finally!) recommended that the MOJ remove the testing requirement. NHRCK’s recommendation follows the decision of the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in May 2015, which stated that the MOJ’s policy requiring a health check which includes HIV and drug tests for native-speaking English teachers (those on the E-2 visa) constitutes racial discrimination.

The complaint which led to the ruling, filed by a teacher from New Zealand against the Ulsan Metropolitan Office of Education, was initially submitted to the NHRCK in 2009 when the testing policy was first implemented. Unfortunately, the commission dismissed it, along with 50 others protesting the policy, and cancelled its initial plans for a public hearing on the grounds that they were not willing to hear cases on individual complaints. (You can read more about the NHRCK’s decision and the events leading up to it in a paper (PDF) by Ben Wagner, the human rights attorney who filed the case on the New Zealand teacher’s behalf.) In dismissing the complaints, however, the commission allowed the case to be taken to the CERD, where it was accepted in 2012.

Now the commission has formally backed the CERD’s ruling, which – despite the fact that it took seven years to get there – is a big win on the topic. HIV is a forgotten disease (PDF) in South Korea and is incredibly stigmatized, which makes it easy for government agencies like the MOJ to codify this kind of direct discrimination without any public outrage or pushback from within the country. In this sense, the challenge to this ongoing affront to human rights from an authoritative domestic institution is crucial. In particular, the commission’s decision calls out the MOJ’s policy as blatant racial discrimination, specifically citing the fact (also noted in the CERD’s decision) that the tests have no basis in the protection of public health because both Korean nationals and non-citizen ethnic Koreans are exempt from the testing requirement:

[T]he Ministry of Justice takes a stand that an independent state is bestowed with wide discretion in its immigration control and, in particular, such tests are indispensable as the instructors are supposed to protect young students and facilitate a safe environment and public health.

However, as noted by the CERD, even the vast discretion embedded in immigration control hardly renders it reasonable that while Korean teachers and ethnically Korean foreign language instructors are exempted from the testing, only foreign E-2 visa holders are under an obligation to test for HIV. Likewise, the concerns about a safe public health environment offer little ground for different treatment between ethnically Korean teachers and foreign instructors with E-2 visas.

Second, it points out that the policy has the potential to stigmatize foreigners as being high-risk for HIV and thus lead the general public to believe that they are not at risk for infection. This is important, as the country’s HIV infection rate continues to climb.

The MOJ never responded to, or changed its testing policies in response to, the UN CERD’s ruling. Hopefully the Korean government will be more responsive to a ruling from a domestic institution, but there is no way to know for sure. However, foreign English teachers now have a resource to challenge the testing if they wish. The NHRCK decision explicitly states that the UN CERD decision carries the same authority as domestic Korean law:

Article 6 (1) of the [Korean] Constitution states, “Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea,” indicating that the country has a legally binding obligation to facilitate the rights prescribed by the treaty to which it agrees by means of accession, ratification or succession. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates, “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith,” while Article 27 states, “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

English teachers may be able to use the CERD decision to persuade their employers not to require the HIV test; alternatively, they have the option to file a complaint with the NHRCK (either named or anonymous) and/or the UN CERD Secretariat. The full decision has been made available by Matt von Volkenburg on Gusts of Popular Feeling.

Shameless plug: I will be presenting on this topic, including successes and ongoing advocacy initiatives, at this year’s APHA Annual Meeting in Denver.

APHA (@PublicHealth) late-breaker policy on HIV testing for immigrants posted

Note: This was cross-posted to my own blog.


As I mentioned in my recap of the 2015 APHA Annual Meeting, I authored a late-breaker policy, “Opposition to Policies Requiring a Negative HIV Test as a Condition of Employment for Foreign Nationals,” that was put forth by the IH Section and passed by the Governing Council with overwhelming support. That policy has now been finalized and posted to APHA’s Policy Statement Database. You can read the full text of the policy here.

According to APHA Joint Policy Committee (JPC) guidelines,

Approved late-breaker policy statements will be considered valid, but interim for one year. Late-breaker policy statement authors will need to revise, update, and resubmit their policy statements to the standard proposed policy statement review process…Late-breaker policy statements will be subject to full review and reaffirmation in the next annual policy development cycle. If the late-breaker is not resubmitted, it will expire after one year.

I am working with the Section’s Policy/Advocacy Committee to develop a standard policy proposal as a follow-up to the late-breaker, which will be submitted for consideration at this year’s Annual Meeting in Denver.

More HIV discrimination from the ROK government: Korea disqualifies students with HIV from receiving scholarships

A few regular readers might be familiar with the Korean government’s ongoing misrepresentation of its HIV-related immigration restrictions: while it continues to receive undeserved recognition from the UN for being a country free of HIV-related travel restrictions, it mandates HIV tests for native-speaking English teachers, EPS workers (manual laborers), and entertainment workers. Despite claims from KCDC and Korea’s ministry of foreign affairs that immigration restrictions have been lifted, one English teacher won a discrimination case with the UN CERD earlier this year, and another case is pending with the ICCPR. Our Section was even successful in pushing through a resolution on immigration restrictions tied to HIV status at this year’s APHA Annual Meeting that called Korea out specifically for its double-talk.

Now there more evidence of discrimination to add to the list. The Korean Government Scholarship Program, which provides funding and airfare for non-Koreans interested in pursuing post-graduate degrees at a Korean university, is open to a small number of foreign nationals each year and is actively advertised on Korean embassy websites and even featured on several university websites for current undergraduates who might be interested. The program “is designed to provide higher education in Korea for international students, with the aim of promoting international exchange in education, as well as mutual friendship amongst the participating countries,” and the payment includes tuition, airfare, a monthly allowance, a research allowance, relocation (settlement) allowance, a language training fee, dissertation printing costs, and medical insurance. Which sounds lovely, except:

Applicants must submit the Personal Medical Assessment (included in the application form) when he/she apply for this program, and when it’s orientation, an Official Medical Examination will be done by NIIED. A serious illness (For example, HIV, Drug, etc) will be the main cause of disqualification from the scholarship.

It is also worth noting that pregnancy can disqualify candidates as well.

The best part is that this information is not even hidden: a Google search on the above line pulls up dozens of results, and the restrictions on prominently featured on the websites of Korean embassies to the US, the UK, Australia, Malaysia, plus the Korean Education Center in New York, GWU’s Sigur Center for Asian Studies, and even Seoul National University (DOC), the most prestigious university in the country.

@MSF Video for World #AIDS Day: People with #HIV still face major hurdles

Note: This was cross-posted to my own blog.


Another year and another December mark the passage of another World AIDS Day. This has been an exciting year for HIV research and policy, with the WHO updating guidelines to recommend that anyone diagnosed with HIV get on ARVs, PrEP gaining traction in the US (even in my own Lone Star State!) and approval in France, new optimism in the effort to development a vaccine, and talk of ending AIDS by 2030. Aw, yeah.

Alas, we are not there yet – and World AIDS Day is an important day to remember that. While many countries have turned the tide of their HIV epidemics, it is getting worse in several others and, in South Korea’s case, presents the potential for a fast-approaching crisis. MSF is always a good resource for bringing optimists back to reality. In this video, they remind us that in order to keep up the progress we have made against AIDS by treating HIV, we need to make sure that those who are infected stay in care – which will take sustained efforts in treatment, policy, and funding.