I have gotten a job offer that is the caricature of ngo work. It's paid well under the nominal value of my degree, but unlike most other jobs I could do, it's minimally copish, doesn't directly serve imperialism and doesnt leave me with a broken back or trauma. I can live with it, but it will not be "fun" treatlerite living (small or remote flat, holidays I need to be frugal with, not that I am into flying anyway). Having a family is out of the question on that salary if I dont want the kids to be poor. I could probably keep doing that kind of job forever, there is a risk funding for the project being cut for political reasons though, which is pretty uncomfortable. The city is nice, but extremely anti-left "left" liberal, blue city in red state kinda deal, so liberals are entrenched in many spaces.
If you think it's doable then I'd say go for it.
Maybe give it a shot and see how you feel about it 6/12 months down the track. You might be able to climb the ladder if you like the job and the organisation enough. But even if you don't and you hate the job or the location, you're going to be in a much better place to land a job if you're currently employed so maybe think about it as a stepping stone to get somewhere better either internally or externally.
If it pays your bills and leaves something left over, I'd say go for it. But definitely treat this (and basically every job, probably) as a stepping stone to put in your resume while you either save money or look for something better.
I've worked in the NGO sector. Obviously it will vary between countries but by and large the experience of interviews with NGOs leaves you scratching your head wondering if they're a serious operation.
Thing is though, it's the really slick NGOs that give a strong impression of being serious that are the ones to avoid, at least most of the time. Sure, the poor quality interviewer NGOs come with plenty of their own flaws but if the NGO is slick and corporate then most often they are the worst of the for-profit world with being ruthless and cutthroat while also paying like a non-profit and expecting workers to do their jobs (with plenty of unpaid overtime) because of their passion or dedication to a social cause.
The other NGO is the militant sort. Those ones are rare and they'll mean business in a completely different way to a corporatised NGOs. Hard to find, hard to get into but if you're good at what you do and you don't fuck around then they can be really good places to work. Or they can be toxic as fuck but because everyone's so single-pointedly focused on achieving outcomes, nobody rocks the boat and the culture of the NGO becomes worse each year.
It's a weird corner of employment tbh.
i would say go for it. one of the more fortunate ways a working person can exist anymore is to be somewhat materially secure, not mind doing your job, and, critically, to not be looking for your job to provide long term fulfillment and satisfaction with your life.... to mentally have a foot out the door.
to have an OK situation and know that you could conceive of walking away from it in a year or so if you found something better is close to perfect, because it means you can periodically look around, day dream, and make calculated/strategic moves towards something without feeling pressured or rushed.
also, there's a sweet spot of being someone who has lots of experiences across a range of sectors, and no employer looks down on NGO work, nor do they ask or expect someone to do it for their entire career due to burnout / funding idiosyncrasies. in my experience, leaving a state job or a private for-profit sector role is usually treated as though there's some specific reason behind it, but leaving an NGO people can just say, "it was time" or something super vague and nobody pushes back.
also, i would only go for a phd at this point to use it to emigrate out or to dig deeper in and get some federal job. trying to inhabit the academy is fucked, imo. people claim to make it work, but i am deeply suspicious of how fucked their personal lives are at this stage of the managerial/neoliberal university and austerity. or the peace they've made with careerism and workplace toxicity.
yeah, one of the other drawbacks of the PhD that is rarely discussed is that people who get one enter a national/international job market for applicants that are generally prepared to completely relocate almost anywhere. especially young/new phds.
and some of those positions, at least in my field or potential path can be in places I do not want to build a life, making the configuration of right job + right place super rare/competitive.
like yeah, maybe I could make phat stacks in a role I would find pleasant and valuable.... but it would be in like Lubbock or Modesto. my MSc, on the other hands, has let me target a broader range of decent roles and seems to have rewarded me with more agency in what sort of career path I want to take, and where I want to take it.
"only" having an MSc in the academy definitely relegated myself and other "professional staff" into this twilight world of no institutional power/weirdly toxic codependence on senior faculty patronage, relatively low pay:effort ratio compared to faculty.
I also had a front row seat to witnessing the hollowing out of education/research/service missions in favor of being turned into an amusement park for the fail progeny of the wealthy and a debt peon factory for the brightest offspring of the working class. just endless emails of lib platitudes from people who are making 7 figures a year to dismantle DEI offices and crack down on BLM and anti-genocidr protests while casting themselves as the guardians of intellectual inquiry.
in the end, after nearly a decade, it became too much. I no longer wanted my earnest efforts to do right by the public be used to launder the reputation of an organization that is actively selling out the public to juice its bond rating.
sorry, of unmonitored, I will rant about the failed promise of the academy literally forever.
