Article:
“In praise of non-degreed librarians” by Michelle A. Schingler (23 March 2016)
A couple of non-related odd points before I proceed with my post: (1) I was originally introduced to this article by a former coworker that shared the article on Facebook and (2) the author of the article is another former coworker from my previous position.
---------- || J+30 || ----------
I agree with the sentiments of the article though I may not share the same romanticized view for why “non-degreed librarians” continue to serve in the positions they serve. In the past, I have shared my opinions on the absurdity of the librarian certification process and the uselessness of graduate degrees in Library Science in regards to public libraries. And yesterday, many of the beliefs I held on these topics were confirmed in the Facebook comments section for this article.
Within the comments, the distinction between “degreed librarians” and “non-degreed librarians” became very clear. Librarians (i.e., individuals possessing graduate degrees in Library Science and certification) were quick to find the errors in thought processes of Ms. Schingler and library assistants (i.e., non-certified individuals without a related graduate degree). According to “Librarians”, the title of “Librarian” is a professional designation reserved only for those that completed an accredited MLS program. The “Librarians” were quick to point out that simply because an individual works within a physician’s office does not make the individual a physician. Touché—in this regard, the “Librarians” are correct; I would not walk into a physician’s office and ask the receptionist at the front desk to conduct a thorough examination of my prostate because (1) the individual at the front desk was not hired to perform such a duty and (2) I would likely be asked to leave or risk having law enforcement called on me. And that first reason for why I would not approach the front desk receptionist to conduct a prostate examination for me is where the assertion of the “Librarians” goes awry. The receptionist at a physician’s office is typically not hired to serve in the role of the physician whereas library assistants are oftentimes hired to fulfill the roles of “Librarians” in the absence of a “Librarian”. By making such an assertion, the “Librarians” are proving my past assertion that one of the reasons why the arcane institution of professional certification for librarians continues to exist is to create a false level of importance or significance to the designation. In reality, the title of “Librarian” is only significant to those that “wasted” the additional time and money to earn the degree.
And the worst part of the situation was that the “Librarians” continued to grasp at straws while attempting to demonstrate their significance to the world. In the mind of some “Librarians”, it is inconceivable that a “non-degreed” library employee could grasp the concepts of various classification systems without a graduate-level degree or state-issued certification. In one heated exchange, a “Librarian” said as much while at the same time quickly dismissing the notion of an individual’s right to express an opinion much less an opinion that was in contradiction to his own. And when dismissing contradictory opinions became too burdensome, the “Librarians” returned to the previous notion that they were important ones that were responsible for bringing professionalism to the field and that they were responsible for ensuring “Librarians” are paid adequately for their unique and certified skill set. I am sorry to burst your bubble but professionalism is the result of individual actions in regards to the responsibilities they are expected to fulfill and your unique skill sets are part of the reason why lowly “non-degreed” library employees get paid so poorly. And the belief that “Librarians” are professionals while “non-degreed” library employees are simply paraprofessionals is the pinnacle of unwarranted pretentiousness. Allow one more opportunity to scale that pretentiousness and it is an analogy that has become a personal favorite: In the state of Georgia, one most either possess or be in the process of obtaining a graduate-level degree in a library-related field in order to even apply for certification. Meanwhile, in the state of Georgia, no collegiate-level degree is needed to apply for certification to be an engineer albeit it would be difficult to obtain such certification without some academic foundation. But, the point of this analogy is that the difference between a certified and non-certified engineer could be the lives of others that are endangered from faulty engineering while the difference between a certified Librarian and a non-certified library employee is that it may take slightly longer for a patron to locate their obscure material request. And yet, the profession in which the lives of other could be endangered by an engineer’s negligence and lack of qualifications does not require a collegiate-level degree to obtain certification while the profession of little to no consequence does.
---------- || J+30 || ----------
I suspect that my opinion is an unpopular opinion especially because I diminish the value of an entire class of individuals’ academic degrees but I will say it is not a total wash. Within an academic setting, a graduate-level library degree could be of some importance in that one could use it to obtain an instructional position where one could then perpetuate the same false ideas concerning the significance of the degree. But, within a public library setting, hands-on experience is more than the equal to a graduate degree.
