Why the same old thing?

Why do people such as Christopher Kiess think we should get rid of an MLS instead of revamping it? The notion that an MBA is a better degree seems absurd, though he does say that for public libraries rather than academic ones. I don't know much about public libraries. For running an academic library, I do not see how an MBA instead of an MLS would be useful unless you are strictly a business librarian. An MBA is not a research degree.

Furthermore, many good librarians probably ended up in librarianship because they were not business-minded. At least that's how I ended up here. My worst grades in undergrad were in my two business classes (solid B's, but still my worst). I feel I could learn the business skills needed to manage a library if I were to ever move into management, but don't think a business background could have prepared me for librarianship.

That said, I wish I had learned more about the business part of librarianship in grad school, particularly budgets. There were many practical things I wish I learned in grad school, though at least I learned a lot of them during my job while in school, and at my internship. I wish knowing basic HTML and navigating gov docs was a requirement for every new MLS, as well as a sense of the profession and the theory behind it.

Many things about an MLS are laughable. But we should try to get it improved, not get rid of the degree.

Disagreement

Okay, I have lots to say today after a silence of several days, though it's nearly time to close my laptop for the week and join some other faculty members at the local brewery.

I just received a comment from a person whom I don't know well at all, but whose opinion I respect. I'm not sure if I agree with what she says about second-rate schools, I know there is definitely a difference between first rate and second rate schools. I hope as she says that the issue of why an MLS will become a discussion. I am sure it is on blogs somewhere, but I have not been following blogs long enough to find them yet. I believe the American Library Association should have a good answer to this question, but I cannot find one on their Web site. I don't believe ALA is advocating for librarians, and have seen this complaint on other blogs (you'll have to wait until next week for any links). It is important to have a good answer to that question and be able to explain it eloquently (which my examples definitely were not) since it is non-librarians who make the overall budget decisions. Marathon County Public Libraries are a prime example of the dangers of NOT having a good explanation.

Why an MLS?

It's been a few days since I posted. Nothing has inspired me in the past two days, and I was insanely busy with meetings, workshop classes, advising, etc... I do enjoy the advising, esp. since this time around I did my homework before the student arrived so I was more prepared on what their requirements are. It is difficult to be an advisor for many different areas, none of which are my own.

I was approached earlier this morning by the human resources professor. He invited me to his class next week and I'm going to answer students' questions about what I do. Their assignment then will be to write a job description for me. He wants it to go beyond what a job description normally looks like and give an accurate view of what I really do. At the end, we talked about the degree requirements. He is often trying to talk his students out of an MBA because it usually doesn't really pay off. I wanted to have a good answer ready for why a professional librarian needs a MLS. I had answers to what a person learns, but needed help from a more experienced librarian for the heart of the answer.

The first reason a person would need an MLS is the obvious: every real librarian job requires it. You may find some people with the librarian job title who don't have one, esp. in public libraries, but they're not real librarians (that's a topic for another post). So what does a person learn in an MLS program? How to use databases and how they work (including the grueling DIALOG- a database without a graphical user interface (GUI)), collection development, assessment techniques, organizational theory or cataloging, and many hours of reference techniques. All of these are the practical things a person learns, the "professional" side of a "professional" degree. However, most of this could be learned on the job or as an undergraduate degree.

The most important reason is a formal way for librarians to gather knowledge of the professional theory behind librarianship. Well-trained paraprofessionals can do a good job at the reference desk and teaching courses. But a solid knowledge of the theory behind librarianship drives a hundred decisions each day. A paraprofessional would be told we cannot tell someone who has a book checked out, or what books a particular person has ever checked out, but only a professional librarian could possibly understand why this is an important, universal policy. And a huge part of librarianship is working towards the future, making constant changes, keeping up with trends, trying to set your own trends, using new technologies in new ways, taking innovations in other areas and applying them to libraries... these are all things a person absolutely could not do competently if they did not understand the theory that drives the direction libraries are going in.

I went to lunch with this same mentor librarian last week and we discussed the differences between a top-rate library schools and second-rate schools. She felt that those she has worked with coming from the second-rate schools have the same skills with databases and have been competent instructors, but lack the global vision of librarianship unless they have developed this on their own. I got that from my education... whether it was worth all of the extra money I paid, I guess that will take time to tell.