"1) a well-developed, universally available associates degree for basic library skills training, customer service and crisis management"
I can't imagine what a joke that would be, or how it would condemn everyone who had it to the most miserable, low-paying library work available with no chance of ever advancing beyond the person who refills the pencil cup at the OPAC stations. Can't this stuff just be learned on the job by high school graduates? How hard is this anyway? Does it really deserve its own fluffy associate's degree?
"2) a bachelors degree for entry level librarians with a major in library science and a minor in a subject area"
So entry-level librarians can be as poorly educated as other people are? I'm sure you've noticed those job ads that ask for a "subject master's" as well as the MLS. There's a reason for that. LIS isn't really a subject. If it were, there would be no need for a "subject master's." So let's take this thing that isn't a subject, and turn it into a bachelor's degree and maybe we could raise an entire generation of very poorly educated librarians. And a minor? Why does anyone even bother with minors? You only learn enough to whet your appetite for learning more, but most people never bother to learn any more after college, so that's also a joke. Sometimes it's important that librarians have actually learned something in college. On the other hand, this does acknowledge the inconvenient truth that a lot of library work doesn't require any sort of master's degree, but just good on-the-job training.
"3) a masters degree for those who are interested in library management that provides students with the education they need to be acitve, vibrant managers who can lead our libraries into the future, The curriculum would pull from many disciplines including personnel, business, organizational behavior, and political science."
Ah, so the master's degree would be for those interested in library management. With a bachelor's degree for "entry level" librarians and the master's degree for "managers," we could fix the management hierarchy much more solidly than we can now. After all, there are plenty of libraries where the "managers" are considerably less less intelligent and educated than the people they're managing. However, if the people they were managing had only bachelor's degrees in library science, that could never be the case, since it would be hard to be less educated that that. And this might make the MLS even more vapid than it is now. Yes, I'm sure everyone who goes through this program will get "the education they need to be active, vibrant managers." I look upon active, vibrant managers as a distraction, because they're so active and they keep vibrating so much that they naturally draw the eye towards them and distract me from real work. And the disiplines the curriculum would "pull from" don't help matters any. Personnel? Is that a discipline? Business? Excuse me, there's a bucket outside I've got to be sick into. And political science? Well, that's certainly an interesting discipline, but I can't imagine any of the interesting parts going into an LIS curriculum. So the MLS will be just as intellectually slack and possibly even more irritating than it is now.
"4) a PhD for those interested in teaching and research in the library field"
I still can't imagine why anyone would want a PhD in this field, or would be interested in teaching in it for a living, but since this recommendation wouldn't change anything it at least has the benefit of not changing things for the worse.
Burger concludes: the "comments resulted in a spirited discussion. What are your thoughts? Is this something that ALA should be exploring along with ALISE? "
My thoughts? Probably a bad idea. Why not just eliminate the degree as a requirement for most library work and make the programs intellectually rigorous? Or scrap the MLS entirely? Or make it a prize in cereal boxes?