Why do many Library jobs require a MLS?

Recently, a friend called to tell me that she had completed her MLS and was quickly promoted in a top position in the library she worked. We used to work to together along time ago in the same library as both library assistances. My friend had been working for the library eight years before going back to college and getting her Masters. She told me even though she was happy about her new job promotion she questioned the real need for the MLS. I asked her to explain what she meant! She went on to say that all she learned from the program was a couple of small new things she had not yet learned from her on the job training. However, overall most of the things taught to her were something she already learned to do at her library job. I then understood what she meant!

When I use to work in a library, they would teach for weeks at a time all about library work. Therefore, I can see her point of view and believe that perhaps the MLS degree is used as a weeding out processes in terms of jobs. Anyway, a library job is not as difficult as what the public may think. To me the easiest job I ever had was working in a library and even when things got hectic dealing with patrons it still was very simple. Personally, I feel if anybody worked for a library for more then ten years they should be called a librarian. (That is just my opinion) Many Patrons who go to public libraries always assume they are being served by MLS holders yet the truth is the people who check out there books for them have a high school diploma or bachelors degree. Most MLS holders deal very little with the patrons and spend more time on administrative work. However, we must ask ourselves this “When someone does exactly the same work of a librarian is that person a librarian regardless of them having an MLS? “When is a writer a true writer only when their book is published?” or “When is a singer allowed to be called a singer only when they have a music degree?” and “When can one say that they are an artist is it only when they have an art degree?” Now, don’t get me wrong I do still feel one should get MLS after all it serves some kind of purpose. There are many Master degrees that are needed to help further once understanding of there careers and are very much needed. However, there some Master degree programs I am sure many of you have questioned as well about there true purpose and value!

 

response

I agree with many of your responses. Except that, Patrons do often at least in my past case have mistaken library clerks for librarians. I have lost count of how many times I was referred to by patrons as a librarian. Of course, I corrected them every time and explained the reason why I could not be called a librarian. They often left confused from the front desk. In addition, at the main library I use to work Library clerks did more then just check out books for patrons we had to often do the librarians administrative job duties. OMG! I could go on and on about all the things we had to do that one would assume a MLS graduated would only do. The only thing library clerks did not do was the library directors’ job! Oh, well maybe it is different at other libraries. However, for the two libraries I worked at Library clerks did almost all the work with the librarians tucked way in a back office somewhere doing god knows what! My friend did tell me that the only difference from her old library job is that now she has less harder worker, a personal office and a bigger pay check. Therefore, yes I agree a MLS is very important if one wants to move up in their career. However, I also realize Librarians can at time too have a stressful workload just like library clerks often do!

I left library work do to it becoming too boring for me. But, at times I wonder if I'll go back to it. Right, now I'm getting my masters in something very different from the MLS.

 

Not very relevant to the topic, but this thread reminded me of an interesting recent article about how librarians will need to adapt in the "Google" era: The Google Opportunity

 

Part of the problem, I think, is that most library patrons have little idea what librarians actually do. I do help patrons with their questions, but that's a minor part of my job. More of my time is spent selecting books for the collection, evaluating journals and online resources, preparing budget projections, negotiating license agreements, helping departmental faculty with their reading lists, and working on my own research.

Who are the real experts at running any particular library? -- in many respects, the non-librarian staff. Librarians do help run the library from day to day, but much of our work requires a more long-term orientation.

We try to make sure the library receives adequate funding, and we plan what to do when it doesn't. We decide how to respond to developments that occur outside the library -- a new set of cataloging rules or a new pricing model for academic journals. We also work on long-term projects with students, identifying (and sometimes constructing) the data files that best meet their needs.

On the other hand, I think many librarians do spend at least part of their time working on clerical tasks. Many (most?) librarians are egalitarian to the point where they feel uncomfortable saying "I am qualified to do X. You are not." Patrons (often departmental faculty) also call us asking for help with non-professional tasks, and it's often quicker to do something than to delegate it.

Although the MLS is an easy degree, it does include specific things that librarians need to know. Over time, most of those same things can also be learned by non-librarian staff. What are the differences between the two groups, then?

1. Level of commitment to the profession (not just the employer)

2. Degree of genuine interest in libraries and librarianship

3. Breadth of knowledge (sometimes associated with undergraduate education)

4. Depth of knowledge (often represented by graduate degrees in fields other than librarianship)

5. Ability to interact well within the culture of those who are higher in the hierarchy (academic vice presidents, local governing boards, etc.).

I'm not claiming that these are clear-cut distinctions, and there are certainly some non-librarian staff who do have these characteristics. I will argue that librarians are more likely than other staff to have these characteristics, however.

The MLS is often a proxy for these other things -- a sign that someone was committed enough to spend his own time and money on the degree (and by extension, the profession). In my view, it has more value as a differentiating mechanism than as an educational program.

 

I don't know about that at all. I've read some pretty crappy work passed off as writing and all one needs do is visit any church on Sunday morning to find that most of the congregation can not sing.

Now it might be that we can argue that one need not write well to be called writer but in reality, we generally expect that if someone is known by the occupational title of writer that she has actually written something and most expect her to have been published.

As for singers, those who sing for a living (even occasionally) will tell you that simply repeating words matched to a pitch is not singing. Interpreting the music in a manner that is enjoyed by the listener is what is singing -- all others are just making noise.

 

I think we agree (and quite possibly attend the same church) that doing something best left to the professionals does not make one an expert. Just as poor singing in Church does not make one Beverly Sills, working in a library- no matter how effective and competent- does not make one a librarian.

That is of course not to say the library could function well, nor perhaps at all without the work of all of the other employees. Staff are needed to register patrons, shelve the books, cover and otherwise prepare the books for the shelves, check the books out, cut the lawn, put up the signs on the message boards and of course any organization's most important employee the custodian to take care of the building. If if it were not for the custodian we would be up to our ears in trash and the bathrooms would be uninhabitable. I believe the custodian at my library makes more than me, and I'm OK with that.

So a library, other than a tiny library, cannot run on librarians alone. Librarians and library staff must work together to keep a library running smoothly. That is what I try to do -help out in circulation if they are busy, mop whiz from the bathroom floor if the custodian is off- lift the heavy boxes from Baker and Taylor for the ladies who can't manage- that is what all the staff at my library does; we help one another. I guess I am just one lucky librarian.

 

I would take a different angle on responding to this. Being a Librarian is an academic pursuit. It is a professional pursuit with a unique knowledge base. As a professional and academic field it is reasonable to set standards for both entry and leadership in the profession. This is common. Teachers have to have bachelor's degrees in education, school counselors and school principals have to have master's degrees, superintendants have advanced certificates, specialist degrees or doctoral degrees. Many people have argued that perhaps MBA's or MPA's could also provide leadership, but it is the proferssion itself that sets the standards and then gains support for those standards by the state governments.

At the bachelors degree level I performed hundreds of diagnostic tests (under supervision), provided thousands of hours of counseling and group therapy. However, these things did not make me a counselor or an vocational evaluator. They were part of my development. The master's degree became the formal standard that allowed me to call myself a counselor and allowed me to supervise and to work independently. The profession has set those as the standards. Much of what I learned in school I already practiced. The degree assured a minimum standard of academic training up front before I could advance. This seems reasonble.

I think being a librarian is the same. Many people may work in a library and learn many things. However, in the profession, the MLS is recongnized as the standard. As such it is when you meet the standard that you can advance and have the title.

 

I worked in a library for a while during college--did a lot of transfering books from Dewey decimal system to Library of Congress system classification.

However, some Sundays I was the sr. staff there--so I had to do some reference librarian training. Reference librarian work is the real fun work IMHO...you get to be a detective of sorts, helping users find answers to some really off the wall questions...

 

avia93:

My two cents . . .

The short answer to this question is that you have to have a master's degree in library science/studies to be a librarian because the ALA and the state library associations say so, and generally speaking, libraries and other institutions that employ librarians have accepted this. In the late 19th century, there was a concerted effort to professionalize the library field. It took about 60 years to accomplish, but the effort had two important results: 1) a shift from librarianship requiring a first degree (BA, BLS, etc.) only to graduate (hence, more professional, or at least viewed as such) training and 2) a generally- (though not universally-) accepted standard that those employed that have the title "librarian" be graduates of an ALA-accredited library school. Today, there are few undergraduate programs in library studies left, relative to 30 years ago, and many of these are closing. A similar shift happened in the law profession's move from the LL.B. to the J.D.

That's the short, quick, down-and-dirty reason. The underlying rationale is more complex. Certainly, there are many staff that do what librarians do. The problem is that they often--I would say most often--don't know what librarians know. What library studies students study is what we might call the principals governing the field. Sometimes they learn what to do. Along with that, however, they learn why to do it a certain way and what other options--and their consequences--there are. In other words, those who learn their library studies well (and I'll admit, not all do) have a much better global view of the field, its parts, and how they interact. Technical services, especially cataloging, can have a disastrous impact on access to materials--and so on public services, such as reference and circulation--if not planned and implemented properly. It is this global view--which is represented not in every librarian but by the profession as a whole--which chiefly differentiates librarians from staff. Often, I have had staff come to me wanting to do a certain thing or implement a certain policy unaware (some of them unconcerned) of its impact upon other procedures or other policies. It is even more complicated today, since digitization has opened up new (and very complex) lines of information access and modes of delivery. Choice of digital information objects, metadata schemes, licensing requirements, and all the rest require a global outlook. By global, BTW, I don't mean a global view of all libraries, but rather a global view of the particular library in question. Not all libraries do things the same way. Different libraries have different constituencies with different needs. Nearly all of them, however, use the same principals of information management to serve their constituencies, and this requires formal training. Library staff may be able to perform procedures, often very complex procedures, as well as any librarian, but could they establish what procedures to perform? Would they know what the options were? Do they keep up with developments in the field? My library staffers couldn't and don't, and I would say, on the whole, most I've known couldn't and don't. There, of course, are exceptions, but it is the exception that proves the rule.

There are analogies in other fields, though I would not want to stretch them too far. I was a paramedic for 12 years. I have known nurses that could perform emergency room procedures as well as the MDs, some better. I have known nurses who could predict the treatment regimen that the MD would prescribe. I have known a few nurses who acted as de facto trainers for newby MDs. In all this time, a common complaint from some nursing staff was that they knew as much as the MDs but weren't being respected or paid accordingly. Even though many knew the procedures cold, could perform them almost without thinking, if you asked them to interpret a blood gas report or to list the range of possibilities of electrolyte values of a person presenting with retro-sternal chest pains or analyze a CT-scan of the lungs, they couldn't do it. Knowledge of a procedure or awareness that this protocol normally goes with this patient presentation is a far cry from the totality of knowledge necessary to practice medicine. I suspect there are analogies that hold in this regard between lawyers and paralegals, as well. (I want to say, before I get dumped on by nursing people, that most of the "attitude" I described came from emergency departments and was, I estimate, a minority opinion--it's just that those who were vocal were rather loudly so. Nurses are knowledgeable professionals. They're just not MDs. There's a reason that there's a difference.)

It is common for adjuncts to think that what they know is all that there is to know. That's because they don't know what they don't know. If all the librarians of a given library were to go far off to a conference for a week, the library would still function. The library staff would see to it that all the things that needed doing were done, at least in terms of daily, regular operations. If you gave them an empty building with a pile of books, periodicals, and networked computers, could they design and implement a well-functioning information provider? Probably not, but most experienced librarians could.

The difference between librarians and staff is extensive, formal training. Whether this requires a master's degree vs. a bachelor's degree is another question. Most library staff that I have known do not have any sort of college degree. I have only known one with a bachelor's in library science/studies, with whom I currently work. She is bright, quick, and ambitious, and she wants desperately to have the title "librarian." She just doesn't want to do what's necesssary to get it; i.e., get an MLS. I don't know what bachelor's programs teach, but I will add this: when asked to make policy judgments she invariably demonstrates a lack of the global view mentioned above. Perhaps this just describes her particular situation, however.

The question of "master's or not", for better or worse, has been answered by the development of librarianship as a profession, which hasn't improved the social status of librarians much but it has increased our salaries. For those of us in academia, it has also meant a more equal playing field as partners in the educational process.

BTW, the archival and records management fields are undergoing a similar professionalization process. It is, I suspect, a normal development in fields where regularization of standards is important.

Two cents spent . . .



marilynd

 

Marilynd-Amen Sista. I agree with everything you said. The job that I have now at NASA does not require a MLS, but two of my colleagues are looking into to earning the degree online at UNT. It is called job security. The person I replaced moved to Austin and she was complaining about having seven resumes at Austin Public Library and UT. She said that her lack of a MLS is keeping her from it. That is the way of the world. We librarians didnt make the rules, we just have to abide by them. Just my six cents worth. Oh and by the way, SHE is looking into the UNT program too.

 

Michael:

Thanks for the support.

I wish you and your colleagues all the best. UNT and TWU, both in Denton, both have online programs and are relatively bloodless ways of obtaining an MLS.

I don't understand why UT-Austin hasn't joined the online bandwagon, yet, but your colleague who has just moved to Austin could certainly earn the degree conventionally.

Regards,

marilynd