Is a Big 3 degree suitable to get me into Library School?

Dear Fellow Librarians,

I will tell you something that is happening at Houston Public Library and it is scary. I cant speak about Florida, but HPL is hiring paraprofessionals to perform librarian jobs. Case in point, on the reference desk at the library I used to work for ....there is only two degreed librarians out of the 6 that work the desk. The only job requirement is a bachelor's degree. Also in the area of children's librarianship, there are over half that are not degreed librarians. They dont have to pay the paraprofessional as much as the librarian and still have a body to do the work. It is not right, but that is the nature of business I suppose. Most of the paraprofessionals are great, but they have no clue about a reference interviews, deductive logic or DDC, LC or any other classification system and why or how it works. I have finished venting.

 

Didn't you get the memo? You sell the donations and weeded items on amazon or ebay.

 

I'd urge anyone considering a career in librarianship to look at actual placement and salary data rather than relying on the anecdotal information presented here. Occupational Outlook Handbook is an obvious first source, along with the October 2004 issue of Library Journal.

Based on the experiences of librarians I know, the job market for academic librarians is neither extremely good nor extremely bad. It's certainly much better than the market for faculty in fields such as history and philosophy. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that my own personal knowledge is representative (or non-representative) of the profession as a whole.

Tireman44 mentioned salaries of $31K and $36K for experienced librarians at NASA and HPL. Those salaries strike me as very low, especially for someone with Tireman44's credentials.

From the latest Occupational Outlook Handbook:

"Salaries of librarians vary according to the individual’s qualifications and the type, size, and location of the library. Librarians with primarily administrative duties often have greater earnings. Median annual earnings of librarians in 2002 were $43,090. The middle 50 percent earned between $33,560 and $54,250. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $24,510, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $66,590. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of librarians in 2002 were as follows:

$45,660 Elementary and secondary schools
$45,600 Colleges, universities, and professional schools
$37,970 Local government
$37,770 Other information services

"The average annual salary for all librarians in the Federal Government in nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managerial positions was $70,238 in 2003."

As you can see, the Federal government pays very well. (Those positions are also among the most competitive.) Local governments (e.g., public libraries) pay significantly less than colleges, universities, and K-12 schools.

Overall, these data are consistent with my impression that mid-career librarians tend to have salaries in the mid-$40s. The biggest problem, as I see it, is not low starting salaries, but a relatively low salary ceiling for librarians other than those in director / associate director positions.

 

Well,


www.txla.org will tell you the norm is 34K. You also have to take into consideration the cost of living in each area. The jobs I was interviewing for were in the 32-36 range. Experience counts as well. In the public sector, you have I, II, II, and IV and each has a pay grade. I do agree that you should check the Library Journal in the October edition, if memory serves, and they can best tell you the ins and outs.

 

I didn't read into anything. What you said was:

1. "Sure there are openings in law, special collections, archives, medical libraries, and the like but those are not for new grads, and we do them a disservice to suggest otherwise."

Followed by:

2. "I won't whitewash what a new grad can expect: a public library job that while offering growth and experience will offer neither a great salary nor an optimal professional environment."

You didn't say "often" or "sometimes" or even "most of the time." You said that new grads can expect a public library job. Period. As such, it is an erroneous statement. You may have wanted to qualify it. You may have intended to qualify it. What you actually said is incorrect.

Likewise, your statement in #1 didn't say "mostly" or "often," but simply that "these are not for new grads," which is simply factually wrong. New grads get jobs in academic libraries in all sorts of positions, hospital libraries, corporate libraries, etc. The statement you made as such is erroneous. You may have intended to say it differently, but you didn't.

Your reference to "growth and experience," and your statements 1) that new grads cannot expect other types of library jobs and 2) that what they can expect are public library jobs clearly imply that public libraries are the training grounds for these other types of libraries. Follow the logic. If the other types of libraries employ librarians but not newly graduated librarians, then where did those other types of librarians gain the knowledge and experience to be hired into those libraries? If public libraries are the employers of new graduates, then the implication is that they must get their "growth and experience" there in order to qualify for the other types of libraries which are "not for new grads." It may not be what you intended to say, but the logic of what you did say is plain.

I expect that this is a case of stating more than you mean. On boards such as this, however, the main thing board members have to go by is the ASCII text itself and the logical implications thereof. We are not mind readers.

Obviously, an effective reference interview is an effective reference interview, regardless of the type of library. I wouldn't say that the "mechanics" of librarianship differ either. The difference is in content knowledge and processes specific to each library type, which do differ considerably. I did not say that ". . . public libraries don't teach skills applicable in corporate libraries . . ." I did say that public libraries cannot, in and of themselves, train corporate librarians how to be corporate librarians; that is, the specific knowledge and processes of corporate librarianship as such. It only seems “absurd” if you don't know what corporate libraries do or if you misconstrue what I actually wrote. Reference service is but a small part of delivering information content to corporations. Likewise, you cannot get the training for GovDocs from a public library. It is a whole different world. The exception here would be a public library which was a SUDOCS depository, but here the exception proves the rule, I think. As I said before, the opposite would be true. Someone trained as a corporate librarian would have problems with the specific knowledge of programs and processes of public libraries, such as children’s literacy programs. On either side, of course, all of this could be learned over time, but why would you want to hire someone to be a corporate librarian who wanted to be a public librarian and had taken most of his or her elective courses in child literacy, or vice versa? Would you put someone in a position as cataloger if they had not been formally trained as a cataloger? That would indeed be absurd.

How is this at all germane or responsive to what I stated or to the issue at hand?

The only point of contention here is #1. If you fail to see how anyone can disagree, then you are not paying attention to what I and others on this board have said. It is erroneous as stated, because it fails to distinguish as to type of library or type of position. It is a blanket statement. A gross generalization, and as such the statement is incorrect.

I'm glad that you included #3 as one of your main points, although it did seem that you added it as an afterthought in a following post.

I don't have anything against you personally, Matthew, and I certainly don't hold public librarians in disregard. I have already stated that, in my view, they perform a valuable and much needed service in public education. I wish you all the best in your life and your endeavors. Your original post on this thread as stated contained false information which I challenged. That is all.

To those who are contemplating entering the library profession, I hope that you will not be put off by the contentiousness of this thread. Follow Dr. Walters’ suggestion. Research the topic. Read the pertinent journal literature. Library Journal and American Libraries are probably the most accessible of the generalist library journals. Ask questions of your state library association or the specific library association in your field of interest. Talk to several library schools of interest. And ask hard questions.

marilynd

 

It seems to be a common problem. Budgetary constraints seem to affect public libraries more than most other types, probably because they depend on the local tax base.

A case in point in one of the suburbs in my area happened last week. The good residents thereof decided to roll back property taxes. The immediately result was a cut back in city services, including the closing of the library. Not cut backs, mind you, but closing the library and laying off the entire staff. There has been a bit of a firestorm over the closing, but the citizens did it to themselves.

In our concerns over our own bottom lines, we often forget about our responsibilities to the societies in which we live.



marilynd

 

Agreed!!!!!!!!!. Which setting did you like working in more, academic or public? I was just curious. I am actually a cataloger at NASA and though I trained a little for it, I find so many things I didnt learn in library school. I have worked in the academic setting (Southern Historical Collection-UNC Chapel Hill),public( Houston Public Library) and government (NASA). I have pros and cons in all three. I was just wondering yours.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We librarians have to love each other. We are all happy bookers....lol....

 

Hi, Michael:

Where did you get this statistic?

The only reference I could find on the TLA Web site says nothing about the norm or average. What it states in the Joblines section is:

"[Employers] . . . are encouraged to pay all librarians with the MLS degree and no experience more than the minimum recommended entry-level salary of $33,000 per year." [http://www.txla.org/jobline/jobline.asp] This would, of course, not be the norm or average of entry-level librarians but the association's recommended starting salary.

Is there another page I missed?

The best salary breakdown that I know of is the periodic survey in Library Journal already mentioned by Dr. Walters.

marilynd

 

My preference will always be academic. I have been in the academy in one form or another most of my adult life (together with a 12-year stint as a paramedic, 6 of those years in New York City). Everything has its pros and cons--EVERYTHING. Shangrila is a nice myth, but it is just a myth.

I was a cataloger for most of my time as a librarian. Weren't you shocked at how much there was to learn at the beginning? The basic cataloging courses barely have you put your toe in the water. I still continue to take workshops and SLIS courses to keep up with changes and to fill in areas that I'm still not comfortable with. I have started doing volunteer work cataloging archives locally. Archival cataloging is almost like starting from scratch! A whole new set of protocols to learn.

NASA must be an interesting place to work. Do you have to catalog serials--or as they call them now "continuing resources." It is the bane of most catalogers that I know.

Cataloging is a rewarding occupation if you're oriented to it. It certainly has job security. So long as there are libraries--or whatever they become in the future--there will always be a need for information organization, as so catalogers. It is the fundamental activity of librarianship.

Keep on bookin'



marilynd

 

Marilnd,

I caption photos from the International Space Station (Expedition 10 is up now, 11 will go up on April 25...that will be mine), shuttle images and such. We also catalog Apollo images as well. I was referring to the norm that TLA wants libraries to pay as starting salaries. I have found that academics pay more than public. Yes we catalog serials as well. I dont use DDC or LC in my cataloging for it is in house and we use other nomenclature. (such as JSC=Johnson Space Center or KSC=Kennedy Space Center, then the numbering system).

 

The City of Los Angeles' benefit package is easily worth that if not quite a bit more with its fully subsidized health benefits, vision benefits, dental benefits, supplemental disability, deferred comp., extremely generous vacation & sick time, and approx. 12 holidays per year.

Starting salaries for Librarians with the City of LA are also around the 46K mark and have guaranteed step increases.

 

All I can say is wow. Harris County Public Library and Houston Public Library arent anywhere near that. I was making 32K a year as a Librarian I and the benefits were ok, but they drastically cut them last year. Again, you do have to look at the area and the cost of living in that area. I have a former co-worker of mine going to an interview in the San Fransisco area with a starting salary of 85K, so it is definitely possible. The housing prices in my area arent even close to being as high as California.

 

Hello everyone! I go away for a few days and the thread I started explodes. Wow! I just wanted to thank everyone for all this food for thought. It has been very helpful to me, especially Walter and Marilyn. I thank you both. I was thinking myself that I'd have to start at a public library and part of that is I just want to stay within the City's safety net, but I believe the things I'm most interested in are cataloging and archiving (which are presumably quite related, yes?) I don't like children and would prefer to not be in a setting where I'd be forced to deal with them -- like a public library LOL

UCLA has a new program for moving picture archivists at their library school, but comparing UCLA's admission requirements to a bunch of other schools' entry requirements, they strike me as absurdly snooty and difficult. Once I finish my B.A. I may apply for the hell of it though. Has anyone here applied to library school there or have an opinion on them?

 

Yes, cost of living is definitely a factor. I'm living on less than 46K now so it would be a fair bump for me, but I still wouldn't be able to afford to buy a home in the current LA market without shouldering a massive mortgage. However, I'm from Boston originally and the cost of living is definitely lower in LA and you can usually rent a much bigger place for the same or less money than you'd pay to rent in Boston. So it evens out. I live downtown and have a five minute commute to my office. You can't beat that with a stick. And the benefits are awesome no matter where you are living.

 

Jennstall:

Good luck in your journeys into the library field.

The UCLA program sounds like a hoot. If you're into film, this could be a lot of fun. UCLA's admissions process is what it is, but I wouldn't worry so much about it being like that once you are admitted. The better schools get far more applications than they can admit, so they tend to make you jump through more hoops when applying.

If this is attractive to you, remember that UCLA has one of the three top film schools in the country. One of the others, the American Film Institute is in LA as well. (The other is NYU.) Just be aware that the more specialized you get--like a motion picture archivist--the more likely you will have to relocate to find a good position. As a cataloger, however, your skills are good in any Anglo-American library or library system. But if you were interested in becoming a motion picture archivist, you're certainly in the right place.

BTW, cataloging and archives are similar primarily in information organization, processing, and devising schemes of access. Archives is actually a separate profession from librarianship, however. Most librarians have no clue about archival administration and a minority of archivists are librarians. Most archives programs in the country are taught in history departments. Only a few library schools--chiefly Pittsburgh and Maryland, and now perhaps UCLA--have full-blown archival programs. If you are interested in this UCLA program, you could get the best of both worlds: earn a master's in library studies/science and become a certified archivist (for the C.A., you have to take a short test). If your interest is in this area, the two combined would give you the maximum flexibility for employment. If you go to a library school that doesn't have much in the way of archival administration, see if they have courses in rare books, special collections, and preservation. You can get some of the same skills and still be more attractive to special collections departments or specialized libraries. But if I had my heart set on this area, I would seek to do both: a solid MLS with lots of cataloging and an archival administration certification (or at least coursework). If you want to learn a little more about archival work, go to the Web site of the Society of American Archivists: www.archivists.org.

Also keep in mind that many of the main public libraries have special collections departments. Generally speaking, no kids.

Once again. Good luck. Let's us know your progress along the path.

marilynd

 

Thanks for that info, Marilyn. I believe San Jose has some courses in archiving so they are a possibility as well. And San Jose is less expensive than UCLA. I don't want to overspecialize too much as I'd like to leave my job prospects open, but I was even thinking that after I get my MLS, if I still have a jones for more education then that motion picture archivist program could be quite attractive.