The argument over whether the MLIS is useful/relevant/necessary to library work, particularly in academic libraries, has raged on for years. I admit, having been through roughly 2/3 of an MLIS program myself, now, I’m a little more on the “no” side than the “yes.” I’m centrist enough to see both sides, and, certainly, I’ve learned things in my classes. I don’t think the degree, sans professional experience, is worth anything at all, but, on the flip side, I’m not prepared to claim that professional experience alone is enough.
I’ve been exposed to high-falutin’ ideals in coursework and seen the truth of their applicability (or lack thereof) in real library situations; similarly, I’ve heard of technologies in my digital libraries class that I then got to talk about with real library professionals at a conference. Would I have bothered noticing the larger issues under debate in my workplace, or bothered discussing these technologies at the conference, if I hadn’t had the in-class exposure to them? Hard to say. There’s always been a feeling of kismet to my intellectual life–different experiences happen in different areas of my life around the same time and build on each other. I’ve always felt great wonder about this process, but maybe that’s just how we all learn (see “experimental bias”). It isn’t as though the process started with coursework: I read every blog and news feed I could, over the spring and summer before school started, and a lot of what I read has been talked about [sometimes ad nauseam] in my coursework or has shown up in my library jobs, both public and academic.
So maybe all that’s needed is intellectual curiosity combined with experience? I don’t know; I’m not here to make a proclamation either way. I’m not all that experienced, myself, and I’m sure my view will continue to change over time.
To the point, though: apparently, ACRL thought this whole thing would be worthwhile to debate, and LJ thought the debate was worth covering.
I was a little unimpressed by some of the arguments presented–whether this is poor summary by LJ or whether the argument is just too stale to interest the debaters, I’m not sure. The MLS “fosters shared values”? (I’m quoting LJ, not Liz Bishoff, here.) I am not convinced that a year–or even two–of courses that are, for financial reasons, stuffed to the brim with students, or worse, taken only online, will change one’s values dramatically. The full phrase LJ used was “it fosters shared values–values essential to the transition to the future of the digital library.” I think I’ve made my feelings clear, re: the amount of preparation the average library student receives, as far as “the transition to the future of the digital library” (awkward phrasing). I just don’t see it.
But the other side wasn’t wildly impressive, either. The argument that–and this is a quote, according to LJ, of Arnold Hirsholn–the library Master’s is “devoid of anything unique to librarianship” seemed strange to me. What, really, is unique to librarianship? Like MBAs, we should learn to manage. (I don’t know about them, but we don’t, really.) Like teachers, we should learn to present thoughts and ideas coherently. Like anyone in the entire world, we should learn to conduct ourselves professionally–and it deeply frustrates and saddens and, honestly, scares me that we waste course time on this, where other Masters programs do not. Like anyone in customer service … we don’t really need a Master’s degree for that, though, do we?
Putting aside anti-censorship ethics, the only thing really unique to librarianship is a certain facility with data–an ability to find things other people can’t find–and I don’t really feel like my coursework has given me that at all. I came in with better-than-average search skills, both in books and in Google, and most of the really library-specific search skills I’ve gained have been gained on the job. Even the one course dedicated to teaching us those skills just kind of points out that there are things called “bibliographic resources” and “encyclopedias,” then sets us loose to find the answers to some contrived reference questions, each week.
This whole discussion has given me an idea. Perhaps we should require some professional experience, in libraries or elsewhere, (like an MBA program does) before we allow anyone into library school. Similarly, a certain ability with computers should be demonstrated. That would allow us to drop most of the really time-wasting aspects, the portion of the program devoted to bringing undergraduates and technophobes up to speed, and focus on the important theoretical and ethical issues.
I mean, it’s just a thought. But I think it’s clear that some kind of change should be made. Given that the MLS is still a requirement for many jobs–and that most librarians agree there should be some kind of formal educational experience–I’d prefer to see the discussion revolve around fixing the clear problems with the MLS. Better, I’d like to see the schools make some real effort in that direction.
Be First to Comment