Okay, just one more

I said I was done, but then I read Meredith Farkas's post on the MLS vs. non-MLS issue and I think she's hit the jackpot, exactly what I've been trying to say, but much more positively (and she was able to do so in one post). I particularly think it boils down to the second-to-last paragraph.

Just once more

I think this will be my last post on this issue, unless I see someone else's comments who get me all fired up again (which isn't hard). I e-mailed my favorite library school professor who did work as a non-MLS reference librarian in a country that didn't have an MLS program before coming to the U.S. to get his MLS, and kept going through a Ph.D. I know better than to write a long e-mail to him if I have any hopes of him responding any time in the next six months, so all I said was I seem to be the only librarian that even partially disagrees with the Liminal Librarian. His response was:

There is no doubt that experience gained on the job cannot be compared with what you learn through an MLS degree, but vice versa is true as well. I think the easiest way to make an argument against these people is to compare yourself and your skills and knowledge with those people "who do librarians' work" but do not have an MLS degree. Do they know more than you do about reference, cataloging, web design, and so on? An MLS degree is not just about courses; it is an entire two years of work: courses, interacting with faculty and students, working in groups, working in libraries and gaining a variety of experiences, management, frustration, fun, politics, networking, and so on. I can go on and on talking about the benefits of an MLS degree.

I will whole-heartedly agree with this. Okay, if all I did was go to classes, I could agree with the Annoyed Librarian that library school is a complete joke. But I worked as a virtual reference assistsant nearly 30 hours per week, more in the summer, did an internship, went for long walks with one of my professors, did some work for the same professor, co-authored an article (which I still don't like), and spent a lot of time with friends who were doing similar things. It's the whole package. I had amazing mentors in my professor, my work supervisor, and my internship supervisor. These are people who love the profession dearly, in very different ways. They did their best to make sure I had the experience needed to be a successful librarian when I got out of school, and it paid off in the interview process.

So getting your MLS coupled with great experience, or landing in the profession and getting great experience are two different ways... but I'm not sure if they lead to the same thing. Not all MLS programs are equal, not all people are equal.

I guess it doesn't matter. I got my degree, will be paying for it for years to come, but I've also two excellent years of "paraprofessional" experience and two excellent years of professional experience. And most importantly, I'm happy where I'm at, which I wouldn't have gotten to any other way.

What's in a name?

What about the term "Library Professionals"? Is this better and more respectful? You get the "para" thing out so that it doesn't then center around the MLS-librarians. What we're arguing about here is a word, and perhaps we wouldn't argue about it if we could find the right word that adequately describes it.

I found this casually mentioned in the Hedgehog Librarian, who has some good points not mentioned in other posts. I am impressed by the intelligence of the posts about Rachel Singer Gordon's post, though surprised that my opinion seems to be the only one who is even remotely against her. I'm not entirely, really, just concerned at the implications.

One thing in nearly all of the posts that seems mis-represented is how easy it is to get an MLS. The Hedgehog Librarian suggests to non-MLS library professionals that they may want to go ahead and pick one up to provide mobility for the future... just in case. There are very few library schools in the country as all of us with an MLS know. If you happen to live close to one and can pay in-state tuition or have your employer cover some of the cost, and happen not to have young children, then go for it. But most people have to move, most people have family obligations which are more important than a just-in-case degree. Education, even in a state school, is incredibly expensive, and many people are not able to go in-state for library school since there are so few of them. There are online programs, but most still require you to travel at some point, so you're still geographically limited. Or you need to have a job that will give you time off for residencies. While the courses tend to be easier than other graduate programs, they are still incredibly time-consuming.

I put my heart into library school and got myself into a tight financial situation for my MLS. I have a hard time believing that other peoples' programs were so much easier that they see getting an MLS similar to picking up a value meal at a Wendy's drive-through on the way home from work one day.

Re-evaluation

I got linked to from the Liminal Librarian, who must have a Google Alert on her blog (as I do, which is how I found out) as I just wrote that post earlier today. I have also received one comment supporting her. I believe looking at some other peoples' posts that while we are all conflicted on the issue, most people side with Rachel Singer Gordon.

I was a reference assistant to online graduate students for 30 hours per week for the two years I was in grad school. The skills I picked up in that job were much more important than anything I learned in the classroom, but I still considered myself a paraprofessional. I was fortunate in that while most of my professors had Ph.D.'s, most of them had also served as librarians or other types of information professionals before returning to grad school (my favorite professor had worked as a non-MLS librarian for 7 years).

I am defensive in that I spent 2 years of my life working on this degree, graduated with a 3.97 GPA while working at least 30 hours per week in a demanding paraprofessional job, went through my once-significant savings, and am now oppressed by student loans to get that piece of paper. My monthly loan payment is 20% of my take-home salary and will be for another 8 years without my parents' help.

I would not have gotten my current job without the degree and I believe the trend to call non-MLS workers "librarians" is not as much of an issue in academic libraries as it is in public ones. I am sympathetic to people who are doing professional librarian work in public libraries. In academic libraries, I don't want the paraprofessionals looked down upon, but I don't want them called "librarians" either unless they really do librarians' work. As I said in the original post, that involves reference interviews, instruction, database analysis and selection/deselection, collection development and weeding, keeping up with global library trends, applying new technologies to the library, planning budgets and strategic plans. I think working more than an 8-hour day when you don't feel caught-up is an important thing, too. And is the person in a "job" or working it as a "career?"

If they are doing any combination of these things, fine, I will happily call them a "librarian." I don't see reading to children or processing Interlibrary Loan requests as professional librarians' work. I'm not saying these are easy tasks (I don't want anything to do with other peoples' children) but they're not professional-librarian work.

I will admit that almost all of this was learned on the job for me, either as a paraprofessional in school or in my first professional job. But I'm scared of the trends I mentioned previously and the implication that the effort I went through and am proud of to get my degree is worthless....

And I still don't get how no one would let me teach French in high school or college without the proper degree, even if I was perfectly cabable of doing so and had relevant experience, yet people wouldn't mind replacing me with someone who doesn't have the "proper" degree.

Could we at least all agree that those without significant library experience (and preferably an MLS) should not be named as library directors?

To MLS or not? That is the question

The Liminal Librarian recently wrote a post called "If it quacks like a librarian..." that disagrees with the common opinion of MLS librarians that those without an MLS should not be called librarians and should not be included in the Library Journal's list of movers and shakers. I have no problem with them being called "movers and shakers," I strongly believe talented paraprofessionals and those who work for vendors can drive changes in the field of libraries.

However, I'm not sure if they should be called "librarians." Do they do reference with thought to reference interviews? Do they teach bibliographic instruction? Do they keep up with technology and library trends? Do they coordinate major assessments? Do they set budgets, decide which books to buy, review databases to buy or get rid of? Do they take their work home when it's too much to fit into an 8-hour work day?

I don't think being defensive of the word "librarian" means we don't value the paraprofessionals' work. We have excellent people at our library and I would hate for them to think I look down on them. I am often running to them for help and explanations. I believe they should get a 25% raise in pay (and I should get a 10% one) and would get very defensive if a student spoke lowly of them.

But a community person called ahead to ask if we had Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, which she wanted to use for an online class assignment. The person said "oh yes, of course we have that database." So the woman drove about 30 minutes to get here, only to find out we only have Reader's Guide Retrospective. I could only tell her none of the librarians would have told her that. In this particular case, it was most likely a student worker who answered the phone and didn't know to pass it on, so it may be a weak illustration. But I think most of our technicians would have looked it up and said we did, not realizing there are multiple parts to the Reader's Guide suite of databases.

Just as I can't be trained and expected to keep up with what they do, they can't be expected to keep up with what I do. We all have our specialties, and most paraprofessionals do not have the training to do what professional librarians do. I don't know if "paraprofessional" adequately describes the respect I have for the people I work with, but it's probably better than "technician" or "assistant" which seems inadequate to me.

The bigger picture is the world does not value those with an MLS and think anyone can be a librarian (like the note I got on my Shelfari account). That is what we should be defending against. You've got these stories such as the shakeup of Memphis's public libraries and the mayor appointing a business man and a former body-guard to run the public libraries, kicking out a long-time director who had turned the libraries around and won national awards.

Sure, there are people with MLS degrees that are not librarians at heart. They drove me crazy in grad school, bringing down group projects and giving very half-hearted presentations. I don't ever want to work with that type of person. An MLS doesn't automatically make you a true librarian, but...

Okay, I'm bringing in too many points here. An MLS is not the same as an M.D. or a J.D., and I grant it is one of the easier master's degrees... but not any easier than most masters degrees in education from my humble observation. No one would hire you to teach college French without a related master's degree at the least, and a Ph.D. for upper-level students. Could I teach French if I wanted to? I'm pretty sure I could. But no one would ask me to. So why isn't it the same with librarians?

I'm done ranting and raving. For the moment anyway.