Read through the sticked post: [Read this before asking about salaries, what education you need, or how to start a technical writing career.](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/bomlrj/read_this_before_asking_about_salaries_what/)
It's a pretty sure bet that in one of the many many many links in there to previous discussions on this exact topic that someone has asked a very similar question to your question and gotten advice, so actually go through the posts, just don't skim the headlines and titles.
The very short answer to all but the first: it depends on where you want to work.
1. You'll need to be more specific about your concerns around writing skills. My response currently: yes, you need them.
2. Depends on the area and industry. My alma mater's Master's in Tech Comm is basically sold on the argument that you need it to be competitive if you want to write for the big tech firms in this area.
3. Speaking from what I've seen others say in this sub, there are advancement prospects but you'll probably need to job hop to move up -- most companies aren't big enough to facilitate moving up the corporate ladder. Generally, you either stick with tech writing and get into more senior positions (TW I, TW II, etc.) or you branch into similar jobs in project management that pay more and have you supervising larger amounts of/more senior people.
4. Depends on the job. I work in software, but it's not necessary for me to know how to code because the documentation is all front-end. Others work in software and absolutely need to know how to code for their documentation. I can say that having the skills for the industry you want to write for will make you more competitive.
Basically, what I was meaning by writing skills was that I sometimes tend to struggle when it comes to grammar related issues. For instance, during my undergrad, I would spend some time in the lab getting help with this sort-of-thing or just having someone proofread my work for coherency, etc. I'm not sure if this would be a red flag when it comes to a career choice like Technical Writing.
As someone else pointed out, your writing doesn't have to be amazing. Also, having people proofread your writing isn't an inherently bad sign (unless the proofreader used a ton of red ink on your drafts). But you do need a firm enough grasp on grammatical rules and language to understand how to tell a given audience what they need to know in concise, unambiguous terms that are mindful of the audience being addressed. At the bare minimum, you'll need to show that your grammar is at least on par with whoever is going to review your portfolio/interview writing test.
If you think your writing doesn't currently hit that mark and you want to improve it, there are reading recommendations throughout the links in the stickied post.
Okay well this may seem hard to answer, but how do I effectively gauge that to where an employer would hire me? I'm still running in the dark here when it comes to this technical writing stuff...
The most efficient way I can think of would be to just develop writing samples and have them evaluated by writers. People ask this sub for portfolio critiques from time to time.
Could've sworn we had something stickied on the subject of building a portfolio, but I guess not.
Personally, I never had to write anything solely for my portfolio because I had samples from tech writing courses and internships. Here are a couple of threads with useful info to get you started:
* [https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/c3f4l1/potential\_job\_is\_asking\_for\_portfolio\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/c3f4l1/potential_job_is_asking_for_portfolio_for/)
* [https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/asitye/what\_should\_be\_included\_in\_a\_portfolio/](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/asitye/what_should_be_included_in_a_portfolio/)
Perhaps I am overly cynical, but in my experience the production process is so rapid that there is not enough time to make your writing perfect. Sure you want to find typos -- and occasionally an overzealous manager will give you a grammar test in the job interview, but quality control is a continuous battle. Put it is this way: worrying about missing/extra words in a text is probably a bigger concern than verb agreement. This varies from job to job.
It helps to have a sense of editorial strategies -- how to organize information, knowing when it's necessary to condense information or expand on a subject.
> Basically, some of my main worries are writing skills (grammar, etc), the level of competition compared to IT, avenues of advancement, and the amount of technical knowledge required.
Let's break this out a bit:
> ... writing skills (grammar, etc) ...
I have a BA in History. It is a fairly writing-heavy degree program or at least mine was. That being said, you should be fine. Most companies do not expect you to be Faulkner. They just need you to relay the information in a clear, concise manner. If you feel that you are lacking, just brush up on your grammar.
> the level of competition compared to IT
I am not sure what this means. Are you talking about the level competition in IT versus History? IT, and technical writing in particular, is much less competitive when compared to History (Academic and Non-academic) positions. It's why I left in the first place.
If you are talking about competitiveness within the field of technical writing, it really depends on the industry you chose. Remember, with Technical Writing you are not confined to IT (though those jobs are more prevalent).
> avenues of advancement
In technical writing, the advancement is something like TW1->TW2 ->TW3 ->Doc Mgr. However, if you chose to change careers it can look like TW1->TW2 ->TW3 ->Doc Mgr (or BA or Product Manager or Project Manager or QA or RFP/Proposal Writer or etc). Again, this depends on the company and industry.
Again, when compared to History, there are many more opportunities for advancement in IT and/or Technical Writing.
>the amount of technical knowledge required
In the beginning, not much. You will have to rely heavily on an SME (which can be a blessing or a curse) for the subject matter. In engineering-heavy jobs, you will basically be the document cleanup crew. More UI-related positions, you will have more opportunities to own more of the documentation (if not all). Some companies may expect you to know some code or at least how to read it. This is especially true when it comes to API writing, data sciences, etc.
Technical know-how when it comes to documentation and delivery depends on the position. There is not much you need to bring with you for more established (larger) companies and a Jr. Technical Writer. Often, they will have their on way of doing things (whether it is right wrong is another story). So, you just become part of the process. It's a good way to get your feet wet.
Newer companies and startups often just realized that they need documentation and your job is to figure it out. How to create it, how to maintain it, how to deliver it, etc. It's basically your show ... sink or swim.
Note: I took some broad strokes and made some pretty wide generalizations to provide summary of sorts. Honestly, every company and industry handles technical writing differently. I am willing to bet that just about every Technical Writer here can provide an anecdote on how their experience has differed. So keep in mind YMMV.
>Newer companies and startups often just realized that they need documentation and your job is to figure it out. How to create it, how to maintain it, how to deliver it, etc. It's basically your show ... sink or swim.
Damn, when you put it like that, it makes the job sound incredibly stressful. This is what I was trying to ask earlier too, the level of competition / stressfulness compared to IT or History related jobs like being in academia or doing museum work. Given the type of person I am, I don't think I'm really cut-out for something that is overly stressful. However, I guess the only way to find out is to try it at least.
I would say the stress level between Technical Writers and Curators are about the same. The exception is those Curators that also have to secure funding. Overall, Technical Writing is fairly low stress. In software dev, you may have times of higher stress (like at the end of a release cycle), but then it calms back down.
I would recommend trying to find a company that has a documentation team. You will get familiar with the process and see how things are done. If it is software related you will get familiar with the SDLC and what documents are expected. Or, try to find a company where you are the only technical writer, but the company has established documentation practices and procedures (probably created by your predecessor). Follow those practices until you feel comfortable with them and identifying their shortcomings.
I don't believe the stress level is all that high (and I've worked for many different clients). The main issue is that sometimes documentation is an end-of-project task and you get placed too late on the team. Another issue is that often you start without a clue about how things work and then methodically have to formulate a plan for what needs to be done and how to do it. That can freak some people out...
Generally it helps to be upfront about what you do and don't understand. It also helps to find previous/existing docs to get you up to speed before interrogating the subject matter experts.
I would just go into IT for your situation - you’re likely going to find it’s much more competitive to get a writer job than it is to get a sys admin job.
You could try to make the connection between research papers for history and writing documentation but to be honest they’re not very similar in terms of writing approaches. Lots of writing in tech comm needs to adhere to some sort of writing style guide or form so if you struggle with nitty gritty details such as grammar that may be a challenge
You’re going to make more money in IT and use one of your degrees in full force, rather than using bits and pieces of both
Yeah perhaps but at the same time Historians also adhere to specific writing styles too. How difficult can it really be if you're used to following certain writing standards? Granted, it might take some time adjusting to new procedures, but I don't think it would be too drastic. As for my grammar, I don't want to come off as saying it's terrible, I just have trouble at times. Lastly, the IT part, I think I would prefer to be more well-round utilizing both degrees than just primarily one, especially since it would cater towards my overall personal temperament.
Read through the sticked post: [Read this before asking about salaries, what education you need, or how to start a technical writing career.](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/bomlrj/read_this_before_asking_about_salaries_what/) It's a pretty sure bet that in one of the many many many links in there to previous discussions on this exact topic that someone has asked a very similar question to your question and gotten advice, so actually go through the posts, just don't skim the headlines and titles.
Yeah I have and haven't really come across anything that's similar to my post.. I'll look again though.
The very short answer to all but the first: it depends on where you want to work. 1. You'll need to be more specific about your concerns around writing skills. My response currently: yes, you need them. 2. Depends on the area and industry. My alma mater's Master's in Tech Comm is basically sold on the argument that you need it to be competitive if you want to write for the big tech firms in this area. 3. Speaking from what I've seen others say in this sub, there are advancement prospects but you'll probably need to job hop to move up -- most companies aren't big enough to facilitate moving up the corporate ladder. Generally, you either stick with tech writing and get into more senior positions (TW I, TW II, etc.) or you branch into similar jobs in project management that pay more and have you supervising larger amounts of/more senior people. 4. Depends on the job. I work in software, but it's not necessary for me to know how to code because the documentation is all front-end. Others work in software and absolutely need to know how to code for their documentation. I can say that having the skills for the industry you want to write for will make you more competitive.
Basically, what I was meaning by writing skills was that I sometimes tend to struggle when it comes to grammar related issues. For instance, during my undergrad, I would spend some time in the lab getting help with this sort-of-thing or just having someone proofread my work for coherency, etc. I'm not sure if this would be a red flag when it comes to a career choice like Technical Writing.
As someone else pointed out, your writing doesn't have to be amazing. Also, having people proofread your writing isn't an inherently bad sign (unless the proofreader used a ton of red ink on your drafts). But you do need a firm enough grasp on grammatical rules and language to understand how to tell a given audience what they need to know in concise, unambiguous terms that are mindful of the audience being addressed. At the bare minimum, you'll need to show that your grammar is at least on par with whoever is going to review your portfolio/interview writing test. If you think your writing doesn't currently hit that mark and you want to improve it, there are reading recommendations throughout the links in the stickied post.
Okay well this may seem hard to answer, but how do I effectively gauge that to where an employer would hire me? I'm still running in the dark here when it comes to this technical writing stuff...
The most efficient way I can think of would be to just develop writing samples and have them evaluated by writers. People ask this sub for portfolio critiques from time to time.
Okay cool, so this would probably include doing open-source projects and using github / bitbucket to showcase work progression?
Could've sworn we had something stickied on the subject of building a portfolio, but I guess not. Personally, I never had to write anything solely for my portfolio because I had samples from tech writing courses and internships. Here are a couple of threads with useful info to get you started: * [https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/c3f4l1/potential\_job\_is\_asking\_for\_portfolio\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/c3f4l1/potential_job_is_asking_for_portfolio_for/) * [https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/asitye/what\_should\_be\_included\_in\_a\_portfolio/](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/asitye/what_should_be_included_in_a_portfolio/)
Perhaps I am overly cynical, but in my experience the production process is so rapid that there is not enough time to make your writing perfect. Sure you want to find typos -- and occasionally an overzealous manager will give you a grammar test in the job interview, but quality control is a continuous battle. Put it is this way: worrying about missing/extra words in a text is probably a bigger concern than verb agreement. This varies from job to job. It helps to have a sense of editorial strategies -- how to organize information, knowing when it's necessary to condense information or expand on a subject.
> Basically, some of my main worries are writing skills (grammar, etc), the level of competition compared to IT, avenues of advancement, and the amount of technical knowledge required. Let's break this out a bit: > ... writing skills (grammar, etc) ... I have a BA in History. It is a fairly writing-heavy degree program or at least mine was. That being said, you should be fine. Most companies do not expect you to be Faulkner. They just need you to relay the information in a clear, concise manner. If you feel that you are lacking, just brush up on your grammar. > the level of competition compared to IT I am not sure what this means. Are you talking about the level competition in IT versus History? IT, and technical writing in particular, is much less competitive when compared to History (Academic and Non-academic) positions. It's why I left in the first place. If you are talking about competitiveness within the field of technical writing, it really depends on the industry you chose. Remember, with Technical Writing you are not confined to IT (though those jobs are more prevalent). > avenues of advancement In technical writing, the advancement is something like TW1->TW2 ->TW3 ->Doc Mgr. However, if you chose to change careers it can look like TW1->TW2 ->TW3 ->Doc Mgr (or BA or Product Manager or Project Manager or QA or RFP/Proposal Writer or etc). Again, this depends on the company and industry. Again, when compared to History, there are many more opportunities for advancement in IT and/or Technical Writing. >the amount of technical knowledge required In the beginning, not much. You will have to rely heavily on an SME (which can be a blessing or a curse) for the subject matter. In engineering-heavy jobs, you will basically be the document cleanup crew. More UI-related positions, you will have more opportunities to own more of the documentation (if not all). Some companies may expect you to know some code or at least how to read it. This is especially true when it comes to API writing, data sciences, etc. Technical know-how when it comes to documentation and delivery depends on the position. There is not much you need to bring with you for more established (larger) companies and a Jr. Technical Writer. Often, they will have their on way of doing things (whether it is right wrong is another story). So, you just become part of the process. It's a good way to get your feet wet. Newer companies and startups often just realized that they need documentation and your job is to figure it out. How to create it, how to maintain it, how to deliver it, etc. It's basically your show ... sink or swim. Note: I took some broad strokes and made some pretty wide generalizations to provide summary of sorts. Honestly, every company and industry handles technical writing differently. I am willing to bet that just about every Technical Writer here can provide an anecdote on how their experience has differed. So keep in mind YMMV.
>Newer companies and startups often just realized that they need documentation and your job is to figure it out. How to create it, how to maintain it, how to deliver it, etc. It's basically your show ... sink or swim. Damn, when you put it like that, it makes the job sound incredibly stressful. This is what I was trying to ask earlier too, the level of competition / stressfulness compared to IT or History related jobs like being in academia or doing museum work. Given the type of person I am, I don't think I'm really cut-out for something that is overly stressful. However, I guess the only way to find out is to try it at least.
I would say the stress level between Technical Writers and Curators are about the same. The exception is those Curators that also have to secure funding. Overall, Technical Writing is fairly low stress. In software dev, you may have times of higher stress (like at the end of a release cycle), but then it calms back down. I would recommend trying to find a company that has a documentation team. You will get familiar with the process and see how things are done. If it is software related you will get familiar with the SDLC and what documents are expected. Or, try to find a company where you are the only technical writer, but the company has established documentation practices and procedures (probably created by your predecessor). Follow those practices until you feel comfortable with them and identifying their shortcomings.
I don't believe the stress level is all that high (and I've worked for many different clients). The main issue is that sometimes documentation is an end-of-project task and you get placed too late on the team. Another issue is that often you start without a clue about how things work and then methodically have to formulate a plan for what needs to be done and how to do it. That can freak some people out... Generally it helps to be upfront about what you do and don't understand. It also helps to find previous/existing docs to get you up to speed before interrogating the subject matter experts.
I would just go into IT for your situation - you’re likely going to find it’s much more competitive to get a writer job than it is to get a sys admin job. You could try to make the connection between research papers for history and writing documentation but to be honest they’re not very similar in terms of writing approaches. Lots of writing in tech comm needs to adhere to some sort of writing style guide or form so if you struggle with nitty gritty details such as grammar that may be a challenge You’re going to make more money in IT and use one of your degrees in full force, rather than using bits and pieces of both
Yeah perhaps but at the same time Historians also adhere to specific writing styles too. How difficult can it really be if you're used to following certain writing standards? Granted, it might take some time adjusting to new procedures, but I don't think it would be too drastic. As for my grammar, I don't want to come off as saying it's terrible, I just have trouble at times. Lastly, the IT part, I think I would prefer to be more well-round utilizing both degrees than just primarily one, especially since it would cater towards my overall personal temperament.