Those Darn Boomers

If you're looking for a reason to feel good about your job, just be grateful you don't work at the Hartford Public Library.

However, today's post is addressed to some of you who don't have jobs, or at least the cushy library jobs you'd like to have.

I think I can claim truthfully that this blog has done a lot to call attention to the lies that the ALA and library schools have propagated about librarian shortages and the ease of getting library jobs. Since I have been drawing attention to this issue for a couple of years, I feel comfortable pointing out some uncomfortable truths to complaining job seekers. The most uncomfortable truth is that nobody owes you a job. If you went to library school because you were told jobs were plentiful, then you were duped. That's too bad, but it wasn't the libraries that aren't hiring you now that duped you. Library schools benefited from your tuition. The ALA probably benefited from some dues money. Libraries seem to benefit by not having to pay much because there are plenty of suckers lined up to take sucky jobs. You're the only one that didn't benefit. Three out of four's not bad.

And so some of you complain and feel entitled to jobs that just aren't there. I've read complaints in the comments that claim academic libraries, for example, are some sort of exclusive fiefdom almost impossible to get jobs in, which isn't true as far as I can tell. There are plenty of academic library jobs, just not many libraries that want to hire someone fresh out of library school when they can just as easily get someone with library experience. Why would they? You wouldn't either if you were making the hiring decision. Some new library school graduates seem to have been under the impression that librarianship was a non-competitive field. I don't know where that impression came from, but it's just not true. It wasn't true back in the day when I was a wee little librarian and got my first library job, either. I know for a fact that dozens of people applied for that job, and understandably so. It was a good job. There might be a conspiracy against you, but probably not. What most people don't want to admit to themselves is that sometimes they don't get jobs because someone else was better for the job. The more people out there applying for the same job, the more chance that someone is better for the job than you.

The most ridiculous complaint I've read came up in comments to last week's post. My faithful reader "Anonymous" left this comment: "Newer library school grads have to take temporary job pool jobs with low pay and no benefits because boomer librarians will not retire." Oh, please. Go file a class action suit against the ALA or your library school for duping you, but stop blaming older librarians. It's not their fault you got a degree in a glutted field. They would probably have told you not to go to library school if you'd asked them.

This comment is obviously motivated by some sort of bitterness, but is problematic in a number of ways. First, the assumption is that if the boomer librarian does retire, the job won't either disappear or change into some other kind of job. That's a bad assumption these days.

But let's take a look at some of the other assumptions. There's the faulty assumption that someone is obligated to retire from a job they're doing just so someone else can fill the job. Are these boomer librarians not people who deserve jobs, too? There's the probably faulty assumption that these boomer librarians that are so mean as to keep doing their jobs can even afford to retire. I think this is probably a faulty assumption because only the boomer librarians in low-level jobs could be replaced by new library school graduates, and they're the ones least likely to be able to afford to retire comfortably.

There's no necessary reason older librarians should retire. Sometimes they're a drain on the library and a barrier to necessary change, but not necessarily. One of the benefits of being a librarian is that one can still do it at an advanced age. Librarians don't do hard physical labor, so as long as they can get around a bit and haven't gone completely insane, they can still work. This benefits the morbidly obese, obviously, but it also benefits older librarians as well as librarians with various physical handicaps.

The commenter is just jealous, of course, but that jealousy is understandable. One of the other perks of a lot of library jobs is their security. A lot of librarians are unionized or tenured, and it's rare for librarians to just be fired without cause. It happens, but it's the exception in public and academic libraries at least. These secure librarians can just keep on working at their physically undemanding jobs for decades, and do.

It's also hard to take the comment seriously as a legitimate complaint because I'd be willing to wager that the commenter wouldn't think like that in reversed circumstances. If the commenter were the one with the job, s/he would be unlikely to be motivated by such an argument. "You need to retire because I need a job" just isn't a much of an argument.

There might be all sorts of legitimate gripes for why people can't find library jobs, but criticizing working librarians for not retiring isn't one of them.

Job Shortage Hoax

A couple of kind readers sent this on to me last week, but I didn't have a chance to read it because I was bleary-eyed with excitement about all the board- and mall-slamming librarians have been doing the past couple of days. There's a great column in the Chronicle of Higher Education called "The Annual Labor Shortage Hoax." The columnist advises young college graduates not to go into academic fields based on the opinions of alleged experts that some field is going to be HOT one day soon. He reminisces about the terrible academic job market and his own difficulty finding a tenure track job. And then:

"Now I am faced with advising undergraduates. Every year a new crop of undecided students -- echoing the concerns of their tuition-paying parents -- ask me what they should do with their lives. And every year a new study, widely reported -- and circulated by interested parties within academe -- announces the looming labor shortage in elementary education, nursing, computer programming, library science, occupational therapy, athletic training, international relations, hotel management, social work, environmental law, or whatever."

This all sounds eerily familiar. I'm pretty sure there's a professional association that has something to do with librarianship that's always telling us about the terrible "librarian shortage" that's always going to occur just over the horizon. The Chronicle columnist is as tired of these lies as I am.

"Meanwhile, no one is reporting that the labor shortage of a few years ago has since become a glut of applicants, nearly all of them the victims of what has become -- in retrospect -- the annual labor-shortage hoax."

Librarianship has been suffering from an annual labor shortage hoax for years. We've got the ALA blathering on about it all the time, and their baseless propaganda shows up everywhere from newspaper articles to Congressional bills. And then of course there's the library schools. Where would they be with a willing contingent of dupes entering library school? A lot poorer, that's for sure. And after all, what do library school recruitment people care, they won't be looking for library jobs.

And now those gullible graduates find that if they're lucky they can celebrate the excitement of being an information professional only if they want to move to the wilderness and work for $30K a year. That's probably not what they expected after the propaganda efforts of the ALA and the library schools. Librarian shortage! It's a hip profession! Plenty of jobs!

As I've argued before, there isn't a librarian shortage. If you're library is having a hard time finding librarians, then the problem might very well be your location or pay, or both. In many of the news articles I see about the "librarian shortage," it's usually the case that they can't get librarians who'll work for such low pay in such undesirable locations. Not the same thing. Despite their gullibility, I can't completely blame the graduates. After all, based on the propaganda, who would expect that you'd have to move across the country and sacrifice yourself to get a low-paying library job.

I wonder how many new library school students were fooled by the propaganda this year. I guess we'll find out in a couple of years when we see who can't find jobs.

Why Bother?

For the past few months I've been learning a lot more about how the other half lives, the other half in this case being all those library school graduates who can't seem to find jobs. That there are what seem to be reasonably intelligent people with pulses who can't find library jobs surprised me. I had a decent job well before library school graduation, as did all my friends from library school. The boring little world of librarianship was my oyster.

To be honest, I did know one person in library school who didn't get a job, but he was what we might charitably call a creepy freak (or perhaps a freaky creep, whichever is more charitable), the sort of person who would never make it through a professional interview because no one on the search committee would be able to face the prospect of sitting across from him in meetings for the next 30 years, and everyone would know it'd be 30 years, because he would never leave. Last I heard he was temping in his home state of [insert some southwestern state I can't remember].

Perhaps I've just been fortunate. It's true that I'm one of the most successful and respected librarians of my generation, but then I have an abundance of intelligence, education, good looks, and charm. Success and respect are my rightful due. But I realize now that not everyone has it as easy as I do, and, in the words of a former POTUS, I feel your pain. It is in recognition of the poor and beaten down that I now wear the black. (Before I wore the black because I look good in it and it goes with everything.)

But as I read the tales of LIS graduates taking months or years to find even their first professional library job, especially those graduates who are desperately searching for public library jobs, I have in all honesty to ask--why bother?

Sure I have a low stress, well paying library job at a decent university, where I spend my days leisurely reading books and blogs and reclining on my leather sofa, but those jobs are hard to come by. Plenty of academic libraries are awful places to work at. And from what I can tell from reading the blogs by public librarians, a lot of public libraries are enervating and mind-numbing places to work. So what's the attraction?

I got into librarianship because I didn't have anything better to do at the time. Clearly, a juicy tenure track professorship at a tolerable school wasn't coming my way, so why not get a cheap degree that would get me a job. That's what I thought. And compared to my friends who managed to struggle onto the tenure track after years of itinerant teaching, I make more money and have a lot more choice over where I work. Unlike them, I actually get to choose which part of the country I live in and what sort of school I work at. And I don't have to work as hard. The only drawback is that I don't get my summers off. It's a small price to pay.

But why do other people bother? What's the attraction? Especially for people who spend lots of money for library school, or who don't have wide choices of where to work. I read on one list someone speculating about whether she should spend $40K for a library degree from Pitt. My answer would have been a resounding NO. Why would anyone spend that kind of money on an MLS? I'm puzzled as to why anyone would spend more than a nominal sum to go to library school, or why anyone would go out of their way to get an MLS. Why bother?

It can't be because library jobs are plentiful and pay well. There do seem to be plenty of disagreeable and unattractive library jobs around, but they don't pay well and you have to live in dreadful places. It can't be the prestige associated with being a librarian. I know some librarians gush about how great it is to be a librarian, but they always sound like they're trying to persuade themselves that they aren't big losers.

Is it insanity? Are these people just crazy? They don't seem crazy, but one never knows. Based on some of my colleagues over the years, sanity was never a requirement for entering the profession. But surely that couldn't explain them all.

Is it that they want to revolutionize the world, one library card at a time? It's not going to happen. Some librarians and pseudo-librarians seem to think the purpose of librarianship is to give them an outlet for their politics, but those folks are just an irrelevant nuisance to the rest of us.

So it's not the money. It's not the prestige. It's not the working conditions. It's not insanity. So what is it that drives so many people? Why would people pay lots of money to get a ridiculously easy graduate degree, then work hard to get tedious, low paying jobs. Why bother? Is there nothing else that you can do? Or are these really the top reasons to become a librarian?

It's too late for me, but you can still save yourselves.

Librarianship as Charity Work

The ALA has been going on about the so-called librarian shortage for so long even politicians are starting to believe it, so now there's yet another government act designed to subsidize a group not in heavy demand. Yes, I'm talking about the LIBRARIAN Act of 2007, which has been introduced into both houses of Congress by a bipartisan collection of dupes. Here's one senator speaking straight from the ALA Talking Points Memo: “With a shortage of librarians across the country and with many more set to retire, we must urgently encourage more people to enter the library science field and work to retain valuable librarians who are already serving our communities.”

"Shortage of librarians." Who believes this stuff anymore? Politicians, apparently. You can be sure that I'll be contacting my senator, who I think is either a Republican or a Democrat, to let him or her know that the ALA is full of something or other and that this is one of the stupider pieces of legislation I've seen in a while.

The Act would allow for forgiveness of student loans for people who "become and remain librarians in low-income schools and public libraries." At least it acknowledges in a backhanded way that the shortage is not one of librarians, but of decent paying library jobs. The ALA is ecstatic about this, of course, because it seems to address a problem without considering the over-recruitment of library students and the total ineffectiveness of ALA when it comes to addressing questions of salary. It fits in with the ALA ideology that librarians just want to make the world a better place, not work at a mere career for filthy lucre.

As anyone familiar with economics can tell you, if the demand is really there, then it will create its own supply. The ALA gets this backwards, naturally, and thinks that if library schools generate a big supply of library school graduates, then the supply will create a demand. I guess if librarians were any good at economics, they wouldn't be librarians.

If the pay for librarians isn't enough to attract people to the jobs, then there really isn't significant enough demand. If communities really needed librarians, then they'd get together and pony up for some. The "low income area" argument is just a dodge. You don't see "low income" areas looking to the Federal government to subsidize their garbage services. They pay for what they value, and they don't value librarians.

So instead of trying to show the value of librarians, limiting the recruitment of library school students, and increasing the rigor of library education to weed out the dullards--all of which would help the job market for library students--librarianship can be treated as charity work, like the Peace Corps or Teach for America.

On a side note, I find it a little irritating that just school and public libraries are eligible. What, aren't there any academic libraries in "low paying areas" around the country? Do they not count? I guess the assumption is that academic librarians aren't engaged in charity work. It doesn't surprise me. When the ALA talks about librarians, they always mean public librarians; why should this act be any different?

The sad thing is that all this legislation is totally unnecessary. Now that the ALA Council has passed the salary resolution calling for a minimum $40K salary for librarians, the problem is bound to solve itself. Some people may believe in that silly system of supply and demand, but we know better. We know that when the ALA Council speaks, people listen.

So, potential public and school librarians, now is your chance to make the world a better place and engage in a little charity work. Build up a big student loan debt, then go to work for $20K a year in some poor area and have your debt erased! You'd probably be better off making more money and paying off your loans yourself, but then you wouldn't be doing your part to make the world a better place.

Jobs and Experience and Stuff

I want to address what I consider an open secret about library jobs, what some commenters have referred to as the "Catch-22" of entry level jobs. Libraries want people with library experience, even for entry level jobs. Library schools don't necessarily give people any library experience. The people who graduate from library school with no library experience may have a hard time finding a job. And the people who go straight from college to library school, then graduate with no work experience of any kind, are practically doomed to the worst low-paying library jobs around, if they're lucky enough to find one.

With many academic fields, no one expects a master's degree to prepare them for anything. Anyone getting a master's degree in history or literature or sociology isn't expecting to base a career on that. They expect to spend some time furthering their education. Often these people started their degrees thinking they would go on for a PhD and become a professor, only they never finished for whatever reason. They've often been educated, but not trained. Libraries like people who are both.

But with an MLS, people expect that if they get the degree, then it will mean something. That's what the ALA propaganda tells them. They'll be qualified for at least some of those jobs that require an "ALA-accredited MLS." But if all they have is an MLS and no library or work experience, then they're not qualified. And we librarians all know they're not. The library professors probably know they're not. In the midst of all their recruitment drives for the profession, the folks at the ALA probably know it, too. Library schools need students, because they need tuition dollars. It's not in the interest of the ALA or of library schools to try to gauge how many actual library school graduates the country needs every year. There is no rational plan to staff libraries. There's the rational plan to bring in tuition dollars. And for those who become librarians, to get them to join the ALA and send in their dues.

I'm used to this, because I didn't come into library school as a naive youngster. I was familiar with lots of humanities graduate programs at lots of universities around the country that continued to enroll way too many students every year because they needed the graduate students to teach the introductory classes on campus. The graduate students were naive enough to go to graduate school thinking their acceptance meant they were making the first step to a professorship. Their department neglected to tell them it let in 25 students for every one that got a job, because it needed the bodies to teach, and it didn't have the moral courage to close up shop when it was obvious its graduates weren't getting jobs.

Library schools are no different, except the master's level students don't teach. In practice this means they don't even get that experience, plus they often have to pay tuition. At least if you're in another graduate program and have to teach, you get paid a bit and you can always rationalize it by saying you're planning to become a teacher. This is training for the future professorship. Turns out it's also future training for a lot of academic librarians, too; they just don't know it at the time.

It's true that other experience besides library experience can also count. I know librarians who have gotten their jobs because of their teaching experience, or their legal experience, or their management experience. They had done other things, and librarianship was a second career. I've also known people who've gotten jobs because they had a PhD and thus an assumed knowledge of an academic field useful for their library job.

But if you don't have any library or other significant work experience, or significant education in addition to the MLS, and you graduate from library school, then you probably will have a difficult time getting a job. Nobody wants you. Nobody can afford to take a chance on you if they can find someone with experience. You'll start at the very bottom of the library food chain, at the libraries that are so bad or so poor that people with any experience leave the first chance they get. That job will be your internship. Make the most of it.

So the open secret is that if you go to library school with no experience, you need to get some somehow. It's not a secret now, because I've told you.

But who's going to tell those people considering library school that if their prospective school doesn't offer extensive practicums or internships or graduate assistantships working in libraries, then they should choose another school. If their school only offers them classes, but doesn't ensure they leave with practical experience, then they should choose another library school. It sure won't be the ALA. And it won't be the library school promotional literature. They'll be the last to tell you an MLS alone is almost worthless.

Obviously, I'm telling them now, but I'm a voice crying in the wilderness. By the time the frustrated people get to the AL, they're usually already in school or already librarians, and then they already know the worst.

Credentials and Experience and Jobs and Stuff

Someone opined to me recently that libraries seem to have very exalted standards for their job candidates, especially considering what they sometimes pay, I might add. I do notice the occasional job ad that seems to ask for a lot, considering who's asking.

I've noticed many times, for example, that the lower you go down the ladder of academic libraries (which I'm addressing because that's what I know most about), the more credentialed you have to be. I can't even remember all the job ads I've seen from crappy universities around the country that require a second master's degree for librarian tenure, which is even more amusing considering they'll count a master's degree in something like education from their own crappy university. I don't often see that requirement in ads for top universities public or private. It's like entering some bizarre employment twilight zone where the worse the school the more irrelevant credentials they want just to show they're not bottom-feeders.

Some schools improve even on this. Take a look at this ad for what seems to be an elementary school librarian job at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania. This job requires a doctorate for tenure. A doctorate for tenure at a third-tier state university! Seems a bit much to me.

I've also noticed over the years lots of jobs that make it a required qualification that you've done exactly the same job for several years someplace else. Crappy College Library requires that you've been the director at Hellhole University for 10 years before they'll hire you as their director. That sort of thing.

Here's one example, an ad for a head of reference at North Carolina Central University in Durham. If I were on the market for this sort of job, I couldn't apply for this because it would violate my longstanding rule never to apply at any place I've never heard of before I saw the ad. It could be a fine place, and we know they must have high educational standards because they have an ALA-accredited library school, but look at the qualifications.

"The successful candidate should have credentials of the highest quality." Credentials of the highest quality? Are people with credentials of the highest quality going to apply here? Or do they interpret "highest quality" differently than I do? It might be a perfectly lovely place, but it's obviously a second or third tier regional state university. You can tell that just by the name of the school. Let's just be frank on what constitutes "highest quality." There is a high quality, well respected, nationally ranked research university in Durham, and this ain't it.

"Five years of reference experience in an academic library" seems reasonable to me, but then they want a "minimum of three years of supervisory experience as Head of Reference." Maybe I'm just naive, but who do they think is going to apply for this? Why on earth would anyone with three years experience as a head of reference want to do the same job at a small, regional university like this? If you've been a head of reference for a minimum of three years, wouldn't you want to move up? Either to a higher position or to a better library? Do they really expect someone who had been a reference head for three years AND has "credentials of the highest quality" to apply for this job?

I've heard many people remark about the Catch-22 of not being eligible for managerial jobs until you've been a manager. Management's overrated, as far as I'm concerned, but I would think the smaller universities like this would be the places where people would get that experience and move on, not move to after they've gotten the experience.

Could this be the case with some of the director jobs that go unfilled as well? I don't know. I'm just curious. But it seems to me that there may be director and department head jobs that go unfilled because no one who is already doing the job wants to make a lateral move and the libraries are too timid to take a chance on someone who shows potential. I understand the timidity, because neophyte managers can make life hell for people. But then, I'm sure you will agree, so can experienced managers.

Wanted: Director

Leslie Burger and the ALA used to talk about the librarian shortage. Since that claim was palpable nonsense, they later changed it to a shortage of librarian "leadership." This is definitely a crisis I want to solve, not by providing any leadership myself, certainly, but by pointing out some obstacles to solving this "leadership crisis." I would provide some library leadership if I cared at all or if I weren't so selfish. But I don't and I am, so there it is.

My investigation of this problem led me to the ALA Joblist, which had 418 job listings when I looked at it. That's a lot of jobs, but then library schools graduate a lot of people each year. Still, they're not graduating any library directors, so maybe there's a shortage at the top. There were plenty of library director jobs. I don't know how long some of these have been open, but I do hear that it's hard to get good help these days.

But if we look closely, is it really the case that there's no one qualified for the jobs? Or is it more likely that a lot of jobs are in places where no one would want to move?

In my vast and limited experience, most librarians either want to get jobs in the area they are from or else they're attracted by jobs or places elsewhere. I've known numerous librarians who still live in the same area they were born in, who went to the closest library school and stayed close to home. I've also known many, like myself, who were mobile and attracted enough by certain jobs to pack up and move cross country. I know others who have just moved to New York or Chicago or Los Angeles and hoped for something to come up. If you're from an area, then it may have a built in attraction for you, but if you're not, there usually has to be something to draw you there, usually something besides just library job. New York, yes. Poop Creek, OR, no.

Could it be that the real problem is not too few library "leaders," but too few library leaders in particular areas and not anything interesting enough to attract anyone from the outside? Let's take a look at a few jobs actually available. You could apply to be the library director of the following libraries:

Manistee County Public Library, Michigan
My first question was, where? I looked it up. It's in western Michigan on Lake Michigan. I suppose that could be an attraction. The other attraction is that it's within a hundred miles of Big Rapids, MI, which I think is the only town in the country named Big Rapids. That alone might be worth going for an interview, I suppose.

Cochise County Library District, Arizona
I suppose this would be exciting if you were a cowboy or gunslinger, but otherwise I don't see the attraction. Cochise County contains the city of Tombstone, the one with the gunfight at the OK Corral, and, according to its website, "America's best example of our 1880 western heritage." Notice that qualifier. I'm all for good examples of the western heritage, but that "1880" spoils it for me. Since the "1880 western heritage" seems to consist of gunfights among drunken, illiterate cowboys, I'm not sure what the excitement's about. It also has Bisbee, which, if I remember correctly, is the town that fancy prostitute in L.A. Confidential is from, but you could probably soak up any associated glamor with just a short visit. You wouldn't have to live there.

Bossier Parish Library, Louisiana
I'm not even sure how to pronounce this one, so I don't think I would want to live there. The parish clerk's website has a picture of a lot of large women in red jackets waiting to help you. I think it's supposed to be welcoming, but I find it a little disconcerting, and it doesn't make me want to move there.

Columbia County Library, Arkansas
This is in Magnolia, AR, which looks like another tiny place in the middle of nowhere. If you like that kind of thing, this might be the place for you. With a name like that, perhaps it has lots of quaint southern charm. The only qualification is an ALA-accredited MLS, so anyone can apply. "Salary is based on experience," they say. Up to a point, I'm sure. They note that they "reserve the right to reject any or all applications received." That's awfully snooty, so the place must be nice. According to the Magnolia website, it's "located deep in the beautiful pine forests of southern Arkansas and host city of the World Championship Steak Cook-Off the third weekend in May." To which I can only say, sign me up, baby! It's also home to something called Southern Arkansas University. Oh, a university town. That makes all the difference. That way you get all the cultural benefits of living near a center of the higher learning.

Truckee Meadows Community College, Nevada
This one's in Reno, which I suppose might be nice if you like to gamble in the desert. You could live large in the casinos on your librarian salary, I'm sure. In your spare time, you could also work on a degree to be an apprentice gambling dealer, which is more than you can do at my university.

North Harris Montgomery Community College District, Texas
Now we're moving up, because this in charge of a whole district, with several campuses. The headquarters is in some place called The Woodlands, TX. Catchy name, that. It looks to be about 40 miles from Houston. So you could be in the middle of nowhere in Texas, but drive 40 miles and then be in...Houston. No, just doesn't seem worth it.

Southwestern Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma
This is in some place called Weatherford, OK, and boy does it look like it's isolated, but if you enjoy the wind coming whipping down the plain, this could be the place for you. And it's only 70 miles from Oklahoma City! I took a look at the Weatherford website, which has some lovely pictures--of windmills, of a road sign, of a park. The YMCA pool looks attractive. "I can't think of anywhere I would rather be when it comes to working, living, or raising a family than Weatherford." This is from the mayor, but I guess he'd have to say that, wouldn't he. At least it's a "university" town.

Don't all of these places sound really exciting! It's not like they're jobs that suck, or at least they probably don't suck more than a lot of library jobs, but look at the places. I'm not even saying they're terrible places. They might be delightful places to live, but are they the sort of places that would attract people from around the country? Reno, maybe, for the gamblers. But Magnolia, AR or Weatherford, OK? I look at them and wonder not why anyone would live there, but why anyone would move there.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and this very minute these libraries are sorting through hundreds of applications from people dying to move to Cochise County or Bossier Parish. But sometimes I see these job ads and it makes me wonder why they don't just advertise in their local paper instead of on a national website.

But then I'm a terrible snob, as you all know.

ALA-APA

A couple of weeks ago I criticized a remark Keith Michael Fiels made regarding librarians entering the profession to make the world a better place, so money wasn't always important. He's since posted a response to that, and I'd like to bring it to the attention of those who might not read the comments. Here it is in full:

"As the subject of this particular annoyance, I must point out that anyone who has ever spoken to a reporter is all too familiar with seeing one's comments taken out of context. When asked why someone would take a job in librarianship if they could make more money elsewhere, I think it is self-evident that they are not doing it just for the money. Aside from this, I have worked hard since I came to ALA to make the ALA-APA a reality, and the APA is now working hard to improve salaries - not just with rhetoric, but with real strategies that should achieve real results over time. ALA-APA's new Director Jenifer Grady has posted on some of the ways we're working on improving salaries. She's doing a great job, but we need you to get involved in what is going to be along, hard job. Thanks for letting me give my side of the story, Keith Michael Fiels ALA Executive Director."

Here's the page of the ALA-APA on salaries, where it says, "The salaries and status efforts of ALA-APA are a response to the fact that library workers are outspoken when it comes to intellectual freedom and other issues that affect library users, but have not been nearly as vocal on our own behalf." Well said. I might even add "and other issues that have nothing to do with library users or libraries," but otherwise no complaint. Nothing for me to attack here, and I wish ALA-APA Director Jenifer Grady good luck.

I would like to say I fully applaud this ALA-APA initiative and wish it all the best, but I'm very skeptical, partly just because I'm generally cynical, but also because from what I've read so far the ALA-APA case for increasing salaries has some problems.

One problem is the lack of intellectual rigor in library schools. Between the incoherence of the profession and the intellectually slack library education, having an MLS doesn't really mean very much, and this undercuts the argument that people with "so much education" should be paid more. Here's a statement from the Better Salaries Toolkit: "Starting salaries for systems analysts and database administrators are almost twice those for librarians, who also have a master’s degree—$61,000 a year compared to $34,000." This false analogy between the MLS and other possibly more rigorous and coherent master's degrees doesn't further the argument much. "Librarian" is just too vague a job description as well. I'm planning a more thorough critique of this document, so I'll stop talking about it here.

I'm also skeptical because of what I read on the ALA-APA site itself: "ALA and ALA-APA are separate, independent legal organizations. They are tied together by fully interlocked governing bodies. The governing body of the ALA-APA is the ALA-APA Council, whose members are those individuals concurrently serving on the ALA Council."

For some reason, I can't get very excited about any group where the governing body consists of the same people who pass all the irrelevant political resolutions. And while the "making the world a better place" remark was just an aside and possibly quoted out of context, the "reasoning," such that it is, of some of the politicized council members is so ridiculous that I just hope they have no practical relationship with the ALA-APA.

What I particularly like about this initiative is the way it tries to give librarians and libraries tools to work with, rather than having the Council make idiotic statements or have the ALA spend millions of dollars pursuing losing political goals. The ALA does its best work when it tries to create tools for librarians to use in diverse ways and settings.

But I'm still skeptical.

Job Ad of the Day

This position description was sent to the AL by reader Soren Faust. I'm thinking of applying for it myself.

Responsibilities: Reporting to the Assistant Dean for Technical and Access Services, the incumbent will be responsible for all aspects related to the acquisition of monographic materials in all formats for The University Park and 19 of The University’s 233 campuses. The department is comprised of 18 FTEs and 31 NQSFTEs (or Not Quite So Full Time Employee) organized into a Trinity of self-directed Work Teams which are to Act as One, yet be Three Distinct Groups responsible for the expenditure of Annual. Bi-annual, and Trans-annual approval plans and a holographic collections budget of over $3.6 million, or something like that. The incumbent will provide strategic, ballistic, and/or malicious leadership and tri-coordinate departmental, divisional, and Libraries-wide planning and activities, including im-personnel management, both corporeal and incorporeal, along with pan-departmental operations and information resources budget management, with the ability to communicate on a micro/macrocosmic level while providing guidance in the use of the technologies yet realized. The Department and/or Godhead will play a key role in the spiritual guidance and continual management of the integrated library management system, SIRSI, otherwise known as SERIOUSLY, as well as instigate an investigation into the new, but unknown means of exchanging acquisitions and ultra-graphic information between libraries and vendors. The University is actively involved in national, international, intra-national, introverted as well as extraordinary initiatives, and requires a department GodHead with a demonstrated understanding of His or Her own Triune-ness along with knowledge of current trends in tripartite schemes and scams. As a member of the Dean's Library Council, the Head of Acquisitions Services participates in Libraries-wide planning, policy-making activities, and library governance and must deny Vinegar nightly. The successful candidate will be expected to be active, proactive, reactive, interactive, let’s active, and protractile in research, scholarship, and service as a faculty member at The University.

Required Qualifications: ALA and SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army) accredited MLS and/or equivocated and perfunctory degree; demonstrated experience as deus ex machina with senior level experience in modern clairvoyance; three to five years experience with Progress-organic responsibility in library technical services as well as humbuggery and miserly budgetary experience; ability to grasp and assimilate new information on a dime; and possess a con-mmitment to diversity and to serving the needs of a diverse population of homogeneous information seekers.

Preferred Qualifications: Excellent planning, anal-retentive, interpersonal as well as ultra-personal transcendence, with oral, written, and digital communication skills; the ability to please-greatly and work with aggressive acquiescence in a team environment; knowledge of daily international currency exchange rates and trends in library acquisitions qua acquisitions and collection development qua collection development; thorough knowledge of these sort of business practices; and experience with the macabre nature of the vendor/publisher environment. Must be able to speak seven languages, Os and 1s included, and be able to demonstrate the ability to walk on water, deep, shallow, or mirage.

Salary will be based on the whimsical nature of The University’s sense of fairness along with our commitment to the national maintenance of an economic division between the poor and the rich – with special attention given to wage minimums allowable by law.

We Are the World

I had seen this article on minority librarians in San Antonio, TX, but hadn't posted on it. Now I've been beaten to the punch, but I'm going to punch anyway. There's a great post on a comment by ALA Executive Director Keith Fiels that already says more or less what I would say, but I'm going to comment some more. From the article:

"The average starting salary in the nation just barely hit $40,000 this year, according to Fiels. In San Antonio, the entry-level salary is $28,752.

Librarians are being lured to corporate jobs where they can make double their salary, Fiels said.

'It's a tough, competitive market out there,' Fiels said. 'But I think people who come in to librarianship do it because they want to make the world a better place. So money isn't always an issue.'"

Welcome to the ALA rationalization for why people go into librarianship. It's not for money. It's not to have a career. It's not even just to have a job. No, it's because they want to make the world a better place! It's because they want to change the world for the better, one library card at a time!

I can't decide if he really believes this stuff, or if he's just trying to excuse the ALA's poor record of doing anything to help raise librarian salaries by saying we're all just doing charity work anyway. Low education standards and duplicitous library school recruitment strategies certainly help keep librarian salaries down, and now we find out that we're not really interested in money anyway. Fortunately we're on the side of the angels.

This statement just confirms what I've said before, that the ALA has very little interest in librarians. The primary professional organization of American librarians does almost nothing to help librarians. Sure, if your major concern as a librarian is certain federal legislation, then they're happy to waste your money fighting losing battles. But if you are at all concerned about the pay and status of librarians, then you'll have to look elsewhere, because the ALA doesn't care about you. They only care about your dues. This statement by the ALA executive director acknowledges what a good person you are and says you don't want any money anyway.

Fortunately, you became a librarian because you want to change the world, not because you want to pay the rent. I'm surprised that Fiels didn't quote from the Sermon on the Mount.

"Librarians aren't concerned about salaries. Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, yet your heavenly Father feeds them!"

Changing the world! We're certainly full of ourselves. Are we changing the world for the better by videogaming? If I want to change the world, I'm certainly not going to do it through my library. Here's my message to all the folks who are attracted to librarianship because they want to change the world and they don't care whether they're paid to do it: Go Away! You're not going to change the world! Don't be so pathetic! And stop lowering the standards for the rest of us!

Librarianship isn't a charitable activity. It's a job, it's a career, it's a service. If you want to be charitable, go volunteer at a soup kitchen. Go feed and clothe the poor. Go teach illiterates to read. But don't think librarianship is some holy, charitable mission, because it's not.

An Ironic Job

This is a strange job for someone--Sunday Reference Librarian. First, I think it could rightly be classified as a job that would inherently suck, since it's definitely part time and yet advertised on a national jobs website. One day a week, that's all, and only during the academic year. I bet that means no benefits, and I'd bet it's also low paying.

What's particularly ironic about this part-time Sunday librarian position is that it's at a Catholic college--Saint Joseph College in West Hartford, CT. Apparently they don't want any Catholics applying, though, since the only day you'd have to work is the one day Catholics aren't supposed to.

In case you think I'm making this up, let me quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"2185. On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body."

Maybe all the other librarians are Catholic and they don't want to work on Sunday, so they've invented this job to save themselves the trouble. That too is a problem: "2187. Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day."

There is a caveat about "social necessity" sometimes requiring people to work, but it's questionable whether this is a social necessity, and if it is a social necessity whether it's necessary that it's always the same person working. I don't think those Catholic college librarians at St. Joseph are trying hard to avoid making unnecessary demands on others.

So congratulations to the St. Joseph library for posting job that sucks both inherently and spiritually. Catholic College Library Job: No Catholics Need Apply.

Librarian Shortage Redux

I haven't brought the librarian shortage up in a while, but an attentive reader alerted me to some ALA job placement statistics that I couldn't pass by without comment.

Before I begin looking at those, though, I should note I've also been alerted to watch out for a study on the Future of Librarians in the Workforce. It's not out yet, but it's being sponsored by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which is the group that gave the University of Missouri $600K of our tax money for LIS doctoral students, so I'm not too hopeful about their judgment. But we'll see.

The ALA propaganda I've criticized before is still going strong. I'm expecting that librarian shortage to hit any day now. Really. It's going to be a shortage in the future, though, since apparently there isn't one right now. The great thing about this future forecasting is that it lets you ignore the unemployed library school graduates lured into library school with the promise of librarian shortages, and by the time the future arrives and you're wrong everyone will forget how foolish you were.

Let's take a look at the facts produced by the ALA. Here's the statistical breakdown of job seekers to job postings at ALA. It's the ALA Office for Human Resource Development and Recruitment Placement Service Statistics for the 2006 Annual Conference held in New Orleans, LA. They sure know titles there at ALA, that's for sure.

But if we look at this document, what do we find? Well, that the "Total Count of Registered Job Seekers = 361" and that the "Total Count of Registered Job Postings = 181." Looks more like a job shortage, not a librarian shortage, but then I was never very strong on statistics. However, I'm pretty sure that 361 is about two times 181. That's about 180 people who had no chance of a job whatsoever with the placement service in New Orleans. Obviously many factors could explain this, and the Placement Service isn't the only way to find a job, nor even the best place, but I consider it an interesting indicator of the job situation.

Also, obviously, there could be many factors involved here. Perhaps everyone who used the Placement Service is a complete loser who doesn't deserve a job. Maybe ALA could put that in their recruitment literature: If you get an MLS and can't find a job, it's because you're a complete loser, and not because there aren't enough jobs. It could also be that the kinds of jobs available aren't entry level jobs, which Leslie Burger is now admitting.

Buried in the ALA Announcement about their "Diversity" initiative, Burger comments on the retirement of librarians: "Rather than a crisis of attraction to the profession, the research suggests a potential crisis of leadership. We need to provide meaningful professional growth if we are to retain new librarians." That's right, she's realizing that new MLS graduates who've been bombarded with the "librarian shortage" propaganda aren't going to be able to fill those library director jobs. So now she has her new solution: "I hope the first Emerging Leaders Institute in January 2007 will be only one of many efforts on behalf of the ALA and the profession." Apparently getting more new librarians involved with ALA committee work is somehow going to turn them into library directors. I'm sure the intention is good.

But back to the job placement statistics. There are several categories and candidates could register in multiple categories, so the 2 to 1 candidate to job ratio is worse in some areas.

The best category to be in is "Administration (Academic)" or "Administration (Public)" because then the ratio of Job Seekers/Jobs is 75/21 and 68/19 respectively. That means you have a 1 in 3 or so chance to get hired. That's not too bad, actually. Still puts the lie to the candidate shortage for administrative jobs, unless the candidates are all just awful. I suppose that's possible, but then how good do we think these jobs are?

If you're a general reference librarian, forget about it. Reference librarians are a dime a dozen, literally. 208/27 is the ratio. That's about 1 in 8, and still isn't too bad a ratio. I know for a fact my last two jobs had about 50 applicants each. A lot of humanties professor jobs might have 400 applicants or more for a single job, though there they acknowledge the job shortage, or rather the candidate glut. Still, 1 in 8 doesn't seem like a librarian shortage to me. In this instance that's still about 175 people without hope for a job. And I haven't seen the ads, but I doubt many of those reference jobs are much to write home about.

Even less of a chance if your looking for a job in "Subject Reference." 153/14, or less than a 1 in 10 chance. It makes sense that these are sought after jobs, because I can tell you from experience they're the cushiest library jobs around.

School Libraries/Media Centers: 33/2, or a 1 in 16 chance. I had no idea so many people wanted to work in school media centers. I guess the summers off would be a perk, but then you have to be surrounded by all those school children. Some people like that, I suppose.

The worst would have to be Library School programs. 27 applicants, no jobs. I think that works out to a 1 in infinity chance of landing a job.

The statistics work out about the same in most of the job categories. But for these job seekers, the ALA has some good advice. A lot of librarians will be retiring in ten years, and then we'll need plenty of people. So keep coming to ALA, join the Emerging Leaders Institute, and when the time comes you'll be ready for those good jobs! And keep paying your dues!

Illinois Confidential

This looks to me like a job that would suck, providing there actually is a job, which I doubt. I was intrigued by the listing on the ALA jobs page. After all, who wouldn't want to move to a town called Confidential, Illinois? But then I read the ad:

"A well established academic institution is currently seeking an energetic and outgoing individual for the following opportunity:
LIBRARIAN
Requirements:
* ALA-accredited MLS with a minimum of 2 years professional experience.
* Excellent verbal and written communication skills.
We offer a competitive salary and benefits package."

What an opportunity! LIBRARIAN! But that's not much to go on, is it? What sort of librarian do they want? I guess any old librarian will do.

And how established could they be if they won't even give their name? Are they so established we'll all just be taken aback with awe and be afraid to apply? Illinois has lots "academic institutions," but how many are really likely to impress us that much? The Universities of Chicago and Illinois post their job ads under their own name. I can only assume that this "well established academic institution" is afraid to name itself for fear of being laughed at. Maybe it's like the Suck-Ass Online University the Repressed Librarian worked at.

And it's not like this is some secret hunt for a director or a high powered executive type. I know those searches can be sensitive, and I know some libraries actually hire headhunting firms to get them someone good. Hard to believe, but it's true. But this dump is looking for a librarian with two years professional experience. What kind of experience? They don't say. Any kind of experience, presumably. But of course the candidate would have to have excellent communication skills. That goes without saying. And since communication requires actually communicating information, which this ad does not, the standards are probably pretty low.

And what does "competitive" mean here? We don't even know who they're competing against. The best university in Illinois is the University of Chicago, and I hear the librarian pay there sucks.

I smell a rat somewhere, but maybe my olfactory senses are just overdeveloped. Perhaps one of you knows the truth about this, and it's really a great opportunity for the vaguely experienced librarian.

"Qualified candidates should submit their resume and cover letter to: 7960200A@hrpriority.com"

Hrpriority seems to be a jobs warehouse of some kind, doing secret hiring for all kinds of crappy jobs, from maintenance engineer to marketing professional.

This is pretty inspirational stuff, so all I can say is: Sign me up, baby!

Odd Jobs

As always, there are plenty of library jobs around, not great jobs, mind you, but plenty of them. I suppose that's an argument for the alleged "librarian shortage," though it's certainly possible that a lot of the open jobs are just jobs no one would want, except those poor souls who just stumbled in from the pea factory and are pleased to be safe and warm.

Anyway, I'd like to take a brief look at some of the jobs currently available. This isn't a "Library Jobs that Suck" post, by the way, since I don't know if any of these jobs would suck. (LJTS is the category almost all new AL readers go to instinctively, I've noticed. I haven't posted in a while, but only because I haven't seen any other really offensively bad job ads. Send some my way and I'll see what I can do.) No, these are just jobs that caught my eye for one reason or another.

Reference/Computer/Program Librarian
I like this one because of the catchy job title. You might need a jumbo business card to fit it all on, though. I suggest they rearrange the letters and try to form a nice acronym. How's this: Computer Reference And Program (CRAP) Librarian. Now that would look good on a resume!

Adjunct Sciences Librarian
You could follow in the footsteps of the Beverly Hillbillies and head to Californy to be the librarian for all of the Adjunct Sciences. I've heard of hard, soft, and social sciences, but I'm not sure what the adjunct sciences would be. Astrology, perhaps?

Brain Research and Information Specialist
Apparently this is something you can do with a background in library science. I'm not pooping on you. Go apply now! You could live in the desert in Arizona. This could be just the opportunity for you! It's not clear whether you'll be a brain research specialist AND an information specialist or perhaps just a specialist in brain research information. Either way, it won't matter. With a background in library science, you can do anything!

Senior Coordinator
Another Arizona job, this time in a public library helping coordinate the seniors. it's not clear whether these would be seniors in high school or oldsters. Either group would probably be hard to coordinate.

1431 Department Librarian
Sounds like it would be some cool secret service job, but it's just at a public library in South Carolina.

Gov Docs/ Reference Librarian/Information Consultant
Here's another catchy job title, this time from Alabama. I can't think of a good acronym, but surely they could shorten this a bit to, e.g., Gov Docs Librarian. I hear some libraries have such things.

Video Metatagger
This has two advantages. It sounds really cool, and most people wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about. Definitely better than "librarian."

Semester at Sea Librarian
I'll end with this one from the University of Virginia. You don't see jobs like this every day! It sounds niftier than it actually looks, but you would get to spend a term at sea every three years. If you're a nautical lad or lass, you might want to apply for this one!

Update:
Loose Leaf Filer
This one came out today, and it grabbed my attention immediately. The ad says, "This would be an ideal position for a library student interested in making some extra money while getting invaluable exposure to the inner workings of a major law firm." Of course it would be! If I saw a new MLS grad with "Loose Leaf Filer" on her resume, I'd snap her right up!

What Do Librarians Do?

Someone recently was asking me why I became a librarian. I became a librarian because I was so awed and inspired by this video. I'm sure you will be, too!

The Top 10 Reasons to Be a Librarian

I've been poking around the ALA website lately. Perhaps it's in response to their call for criticism of the website. There are so many problems with it I wouldn't know where to begin, so I'll leave that subject for the techie bloggers.

However, in my exploration, I ran across this little gem, the Top 10 Reasons to Be a Librarian. Oh my. It certainly was inspirational. Just what I've been looking for after my dark night of the library soul. The writer first discloses what inspired her to write this piece, which appeared in American Libraries a few years ago:

Recently, one of my favorite students informed me that after earning her humanities degree at a tiny private college, she was pursuing a master’s degree in museum studies. Congratulating her, I jokingly said, “Watch it. That’s awfully close to a master’s in library science.” She laughed and said: “Oh, I’d never do that.” Somewhat defensively, I replied, “You could do worse.”

Long after this brief conversation, I wondered, where did we, as librarians, go wrong? Why is there such an onus on this profession that a bright, young person would choose, well, any career but that of librarianship? I think it’s sad. Librarianship has much to offer, and I think we can do better in promoting our profession. Toward that end, I present my top 10 reasons for being a librarian.

Why indeed is there such an "onus on this profession that a bright, young person would choose...any career" over ours? Gee, if you have to ask, I'm not sure I could explain it to you. One reason could be that librarianship attracts a lot of dullards. Bright people don't like to be around dullards. It bores and annoys them. I remember looking around at my library school classmates and thinking, I'm glad I'm competing with most of you for jobs, because that should make it easy for me. Then I befriended the handful of highly intelligent students and now we hang out together at ALA laughing at the losers.

And considering how intellectually easy most library jobs are, it's no wonder the dullards pounce on the profession. They probably think, "Hey, I can get this 'professional' degree just by showing up to class for a few semesters, and then I can get a 'professional' job, and I don't even have to be intelligent or educated. It's perfect for me!" (ALA has my permission to use that for recruitment literature.) That's why we say, it's library science, not rocket science.

But then we get the top ten reasons, which I, because I'm procrastinating while writing a real article, will critique for you, so you don't have to bother to think for yourself.

"10. Ever-changing and renewing." Well, perhaps, but not in any interesting or thoughtful way. And how great is changing all the time anyway? Doesn't that imply that you still haven't gotten it right? That's one of the medieval scholastic arguments against God being able to change. When you're perfect, any change will be into imperfection. Doesn't ever-changing and renewing mean that you've just screwed up again? What if by some wild chance you worked in the perfect library, and then it changed? How would you feel? "If the new books don’t excite me," the writer says, "the new technologies do." You certainly don't need to work in a library to read exciting books or play around with new technologies. "Most importantly, I learn something new every day. Can you say that about working at McDonald’s?" I can't really answer that question, since I've never worked at McDonalds, but is this the standard against which I am to judge the profession?

"9. Romance." Umm, okay. "I may be stretching things a bit here," she says. "I married a librarian." Congratulations? "My case may be extreme, but there is help for the lovelorn in libraries—either in the wonderfully interesting colleagues we meet or in the books and resources libraries offer." I think you're case may indeed be, as you acknowledge, extreme. Once on a study date in college I did make out in the library stacks with this really cute boy, but I certainly wouldn't have done it if he'd been a librarian. That definitely would have creeped me out. I'm still waiting on all the wonderfully interesting colleagues to appear.

"8. Useful skills." Sure, useful for a librarian.

"7. Great Conferences." Possibly. I've had great times at conferences, when I wasn't in a meeting or presentation and I could go drinking with my friends. "Librarians host good conferences." Whatever. "I love the hustle and bustle of ALA Annual Conference." What I don't like is that all the hustlers and bustlers weigh 400 pounds and waddle across the exhibit floor. "I consider my state conference to be so necessary to my mental well-being that I often pay my own way." My goodness, that certainly shows dedication. I wouldn't pay my own way to a workshop across town. I don't even go to events in my own library unless they're offering coffee. "Conferences are blessed events, and you don’t have them when you work at Wal-Mart." First McDonalds, now Walmart? Well, I guess if you lower your standards of success enough then librarianship does start to look good. "At least you don't work at Walmart!" More great ALA recruitment fodder.

"6. Time off." Can't argue with this one, actually. I get plenty of time off, and it is an attraction. Again, that would be great ALA recruitment material. "It's a boring, low-paying job, but at least you don't have to work at it much!"

"5. A job with scope." Whatever that means. With my temperament I always thought I'd like a job with a scope, like international assassin. La Femme Annoyed Librarian. You get to travel, the hours are light, the pay's good, etc. I could either be hot like La Femme Nikita, or perhaps calm and sedate and cool in that old European sense, like Max von Sydow in Three Days of the Condor, except I look more like Faye Dunaway.

"4. It pays the rent." ALA should put that on some inspiration recruitment posters. If that don't fetch 'em, I don't know losers, to paraphrase Mark Twain. "I have made a living as a librarian for almost 25 years and I’m not on the street corner selling pencils yet." Again, if you lower your standards enough....

"3. Good working conditions." Relatively speaking, of course. "I’ve worked in factories where I stood on my feet for nine hours. I’ve worked in kitchens where I came home smelling of puréed peas.... In a library, you’re clean, dry, warm, and working with people who are generally happy to be there." Well, my library is certainly better than a factory or a kitchen, but talk about trying to find the silver lining. I'm not sure about people being generally happy to be here. Most of my colleagues didn't just stumble in from a pea factory, though, so perhaps they're not as grateful as they should be. But yes, I'm clean, dry, and warm. If I were a puppy, this would be the perfect job.

"2. Cool coworkers." My goodness, I don't know what to say about this one. Coolness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. "We are intelligent, cultured, well-read people who bring a myriad of skills, backgrounds, and interests to the job." Are we, now? There are certainly plenty of intelligent, cultured, well-read librarians, but can we really say these attributes define the profession? Not in my experience. Perhaps my standards of intelligence, culture, and erudition are higher than hers, though. "Most of my fellow librarians, myself included, have degrees and/or work experience in other areas." How fascinating. I once knew a successful librarian who'd been an education major in college, and also had an M.Ed., an M.S.W., and an M.L.S. I wanted to remark that she'd spent ten years in school earning four degrees, and still hadn't studied anything intellectually respectable. "I backed into librarianship after realizing that a major in English and German wasn’t going to make me very employable." Smart move. "I know librarians who are former attorneys, truck drivers, teachers, and factory workers. This experiential, intellectual potpourri makes for an interesting mix." No, it doesn't. Are any of those fields very interesting? What it tells me is that librarianship is the field for those who have failed at everything else in life. (Again, ALA has my permission to put that in their recruitment literature.) "And librarians are readers. The conversational gambit 'Read any good books lately?' is met with a din around librarians." Most of the librarians I've known don't read much but mysteries and popular novels, which aren't really my cuppa. And having Orca the Librarian detail the plot of the latest bestseller is a good way to ruin a coffee break.

"1. Grand purpose." Like offering videogaming in the library? No, I guess that isn't it. "As librarians, we support the freedom to read." Woo-hoo! Of course we're not that interested in promoting reading. We're interested in getting people into the library regardless of what they do. "We champion the right to access information for all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, or economic disposition." Bully for us. "Access to Information." What a grand purpose. I'm ready to die on the barricades for that one.

And then the finale.

"In sum, I feel very much like Evelyn Carnahan in the film The Mummy. To refresh your memory, our leading lady is in the midst of describing—and defending—what she does for a living to a roguish male. They have been drinking.

Evelyn: Look, I—I may not be an explorer, or an adventurer, or a treasure-seeker, or a gunfighter, Mr. O’Connell! But I am proud of what I am!

Rick O’Connell: And what is that?

Evelyn: I am . . . a librarian!

I couldn’t have said it better."

No doubt. Evelyn does sort of remind me of me, except I'm cuter.

Frankly, I think this is bizarre recruitment literature, which is what it can easily be considered, since it's displayed on the ALA website so prominently. I don't think it's meant to be a joke, since the ALA seems to lack any semblance of irony, so presumably we are to take it seriously. And if it was a joke, there wouldn't be those points about working conditions and grand purposes. And if it is a joke, it's not very funny. So the top reasons to be a librarian, according to the American Library Association, are:

You could do worse. It pays the rent. At least it's not McDonalds or Walmart. At least you're clean and dry. And, finally, it's what you can do when you fail at everything else in life. Sadly enough, these may be the top reasons to become a librarian. If this is the best anyone can come up with, no wonder I don't take librarianship seriously.

Dear Annoyed Librarian #9: Resume Assistance!

Dear Annoyed Librarian,

You always have such thoughful and considerate advice on every aspect of a career in librarianship. This is why I worship you and want to buy you martinis from dusk until dawn. I just got my "prestigious" MLS, and now I'm looking for a job. I'd really like some help with the basics. How do I write a good resume? I know that's going to be important for getting a good job. Can you please help?

Sincerely,

Aspiring Resume Writer

-----

Dear Aspiring,

Thank you for the kind words. If I'm ever in your part of the country, which seems unlikely, I'll allow you to buy me one martini. Okay, maybe two. But that's it. And if you're going to buy me martinis, that means you need a job, so here goes.

You came to the right, or perhaps I should say write, place for resume writing advice. (On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't say write. It sounds stupid.) The Annoyed Librarian wants to help all of you frustrated librarians out there who desparately want good jobs. The first step to a good job is a good resume.

And just what goes into a great resume? The most important parts of the resume are the paper and the layout. Everything else is of secondary importance. For example, be sure to have a strong, acid-free heavyweight paper in a nice pastel color--pink for the girls and blue for the boys. This lets your potential employer know at a glance both that you're serious about your paper and about whether you're a boy or a girl.

And the layout is equally important. It doesn't so much matter what the resume says--it's how the resume looks. So hire an expensive graphic artist to lay out your resume. It's worth it! No one will even bother to read a really good looking resume, just like nobody bothers to talk to a really good-looking man or woman. People just like to stare and admire the view. The only thing anyone will be looking at on your really good looking resume is your phone number to give you a call and offer you a job!

But, you ask, don't I have to have some content? Yes, something has to fill up the space allotted for text in your handsomely laid out resume, and you can't just put in that stupid Lorem Ipsum stuff. You should try to make the content as impressive as possible in case someone isn't blinded by the paper and the layout. The typical contenders are: Contact information, Education, Experience, and maybe some categories like Skills and Honors. Let's take these in order.

First, contact information. You might think this is simple. You live where you live, right? Wrong. In real estate, location is everything! If you live in Humptulips, Washington or Gun Barrel City, Texas no one is going to take you seriously.They may not even believe you. So you're going to have to change your contact information to something that sounds impressive. If you're applying for a public library job, try Manhattan or Chicago. If Academic, try Cambridge or New Haven. People have actually heard of those places.

Next, Education. Again, unless you have really impressive educational credentials, you need to spice it up a bit. If you went to college in a particular state, make sure you put that you went to the best college in that state. For example, maybe you went to Cal State Fresno. You don't want to put that. You want to put Stanford. Not the California University of Pennsylvania. Drop the California, and you have the University of Pennsylvania. Not Westfield State University. Harvard. You get the idea. No one is going to bother to check, so just make sure you know what cities they're located in and you'll be fine. So if someone asks how you liked living near Penn, don't say you think Pittsburgh is a lovely city. Not that you'd probably say that. If you went to college in a state with no good colleges, then you're just going to have to lie about it.

As for your genuine ALA-Accredited MLS: believe it or not, there does seem to be a pecking order. As bizarre as it may seem, there do seem to be schools considered better than others. They're all easy and intellectually slack, but some are definitely considered more slack than others. So perhaps you went to the University of South Florida, or the University of Southern Mississippi, or the University of Missouri. Unless you want to stay in those states, it's probably best not to mention it. You're usually safe if you stick to the Midwest. Say you went to Illinois, Indiana, or Michigan and you can't really go wrong.

Now, on to Experience. What you should put here really varies according to the sort of job you want. If you want to be the director of a one-librarian library in Elmo, Missouri, then it probably doesn't matter what sort of experience you have. If you've managed to complete some sort of degree and are willing to work for minimum wage, you're in! But once you move up the scale, you'll want the experience to match.

For example, big city library director. These jobs often pay top dollar. Even that one in Georgia paid $127K. But you don't get jobs like that if your experience consists of shelving books for a year and trouble shooting computers for six months. No, you need to say that you were an assistant director somewhere big, or perhaps a director somewhere small. Either one will probably do. Just make up a good sounding library and put it on the resume. My considered advice, though, is to make it somewhere far away. If you're applying for the NYPL, then say you worked at the LAPL, and vice versa. New York and Los Angeles are a long way apart and no one will ever know. If you're applying for a job in the South, just put down that you worked anywhere outside of the South. No one will check, because Southerners don't like to talk to Yankees.

Another example, you're an academic librarian who wants to work in a major research library. (In this case be sure to call it a curriculum vitae or vita instead of a resume. Curriculum vitae is Latin for "I'm a pretentious academic.") If you want to work at Berkeley, no one is going to take you seriously if you worked at the Pensacola Christian College. So say you were an AUL or something at Yale or Princeton or somewhere big on the East Coast. And if you want to work on the East Coast, then put down Berkeley or Stanford or someplace. (Unless you're applying at a big private university. If so, don't put Berkeley. Stick to other private universities.) And if you want to work in the Midwest, put down either coast and no one will check. Midwesterners don't like to talk to the coasts because coastal people refer to their home state as "flyover country." You can't use the Yankee defense, because there are no major research libraries in the South. Just add more stuff like this for the last three or four jobs, depending on what sort of qualifications you need for the current application.

We've covered the basics, and now for some other possible categories. Skills, for example. This really seems to vary. Some jobs want you do be familiar with lots of computer applications, some with lots of foreign languages, some with lots of library-specific duties. It's best just to put them all down under Skills and be done with it. If your prospective employer things you can reprogram their computers and supervise 87 professionals while cataloging metadata and speaking Danish and Swahili, so much the better for you.

As for Honors, anything that sounds really impressive will do. For example, if you were knighted by the UK for saving a member of the royal family from Irish terrorists, you'll want to put that down. If you weren't, put it anyway. Who'll know? Honorary degrees are good, too, provided you follow the same advice as in the Education section. Honorary degree from Harvard: Good. From The University of Texas of the Permian Basin in Odessa: Not so good. This might also be the place to acknowledge your many charitable duties. Perhaps you were cited by a charitable association for all the fundraising you did for some incurable disease. Then again, perhaps you weren't. Regardless, it looks good on the resume, so put it down.

And here you have the basics. If you follow my advice, your resume (or vita!) is going to look very impressive, indeed, and you're guaranteed an interview. With your wit and charm, you'll then probably get the job, and you'll have me to thank for it.

Yours,

The Annoyed Librarian

Dear Annoyed Librarian #8: On the Market and On the Move

Dear Annoyed Librarian,

I received my prestigious ALA-accredited MLS a little over a year ago. I've moved back home to Wyoming and have been working a part-time job in the local library. I've been looking all over Wyoming for a job, but just haven't been able to find one! I know there must be a great job for me in Wyoming, and I really don't want to leave. I'm from Wyoming. My family lives in Wyoming. My boyfriend lives in Wyoming. We're all very attached to the place and don't want to move. I'm writing you because I know you want new librarians to get good jobs. Do you have any advice for me?

Sincerely,

Settled in Wyoming

-----

Dear Settled,

You're obviously obsessed with Wyoming. Get over it. My advice to you would be to pack up your large bottom and move somewhere that has some library jobs! The Southwest seems like a booming place, why don't you try there. Take plenty of water with you, though, because it's all desert from what I hear.

Isn't Wyoming the least populated state in the nation? [Editor's note: according to the edition of the World Almanac I happen to have handy, it is.] Does it make any sense to move to the least populated state in the country and expect to find a job? No people, no jobs. It seems clear to me. What makes you think there would be any library jobs in Wyoming? Have you ever seen an ad for a library job Wyoming? I'm not even sure there are any libraries in Wyoming. They don't have any ALA-accredited library schools, that's for sure. Come to think of it, I'm not sure there's anything in Wyoming besides, I suppose, your family and other animals.

Of course I want new librarians to get good jobs, and I know decent entry level jobs are scarce. But really, girl, you've got to make some effort! You can't expect a good job to just come to you! So saddle your pony or pack your buggy or whatever it is you people in Wyoming do, and move your enormous bottom out of there.

Do you want a job or a career? If you just want a job, there are jobs in Wyoming. You can be a sales associate, a receptionist, or a delivery driver--all without leaving your home town! If you want to stay in the Cowboy State, you should become a cowboy! If you want to become a librarian, go to the Librarian State, wherever the heck that is.

If you want a career, then you're just going to have to move. You've heard of that whole "supply and demand" thing, right? The problem is you're supplying what nobody in Wyoming is demanding. I know the ALA has a problem figuring that out, but you've got to do better than them if you want a library job. If you insist on waiting for a good library job to come to you, I suggest you at least move to a more populous state with many more opportunities, like North Dakota.

Yours,

The Annoyed Librarian

Annoyed Librarian Tips for New Professionals

So you've just finished library school, and you want to know if you're ready for the exciting and fast-paced world of professional librarianship. Everybody seems to be offering advice on what new librarians should have learned in library school, from IWTBF to the FRL. The Annoyed Librarian can't just sit by and watch this fascinating discussion without jumping in to participate. So you what do you really need to succeed? "Ability to embrace change"? "Comfort in the online medium"? Yawn. "Cunning" and "Cajones"? Possibly, but I hope that last one can be figurative. Still, there are some useful qualities missing from these thoughtful lists. Below are the Annoyed Librarian's time tested tips for success. Use them with my blessing.

• Have a high tolerance for boredom. Face it, libraries are boring. That's why we like them. If we wanted "fast-paced excitement," we'd have gone into a stressful field and made more money.
• Have a high tolerance for idiots. This is true for most professions, actually.
• Have a high tolerance for exclamation points. You'll see a lot of them in librarian communications!
• Have a high tolerance for really EXCITABLE (!) people who want to share their hopes for the future with you. Ignore them. They'll get old and cynical, just like the Annoyed Librarian.
• Don't fret over new technology. It'll just become out-dated. And don't bother to learn it. Unless that's part of your job, you'll never use it enough to get any good at it anyway.
• Develop the ability to resist annoying technological change while making it look like you embrace it. This one's tough. Your best bet is to read a good informative techie library blog (e.g., LIB) so you know the lingo, then make up reasons why none of it will work.
• Develop the ability to resist any change whatsoever. Any change not for the better is for the worse. Change is annoying. People who use the phrase "change agent" without smirking are also annoying. An appropriate response is: Are you sure that's such a good idea given all the other crises we have right now?
• Feign a familiarity with all the right acronyms and abbreviations. If you hear an abbreviation you're not familiar with, just nod and smile, and then Google it when you get back to your office. Later, be sure to drop it randomly into conversations with your colleagues. "Oh, I heard they just OCR'd the DLB. Exciting stuff!"
• Learn how to occupy yourself during boring meetings. Novel-writing looks a lot like note-taking to the unsuspecting eye. Or get a device that allows you to check email and web surf without anyone noticing. Now that is a technological change we can all agree is worthwhile!
• Learn who the powerful people in your library are. They're not always the people "in charge." Kiss their enormous librarian bottoms whenever you get the chance. You never know when you'll need a friend.
• Learn who all the rancid, poisonous people in your library are. They have the best gossip.
• Learn who all the pathetic losers are. Speak to them as if they were helpless children. They will appreciate your interest in their tedious lives, and lick your boots whenever appropriate. You will feel powerful having such obsequious toadies and look generous for condescending to talk to them at all. It's a win-win scenario.
• For the first few years, you're going to have to knuckle under to the man. Maybe longer, if you aren't very good. Get used to it, but don't get to like it, or the next thing you know you'll be showing up to work wearing a dog collar. That sort of thing is very difficult to explain away at staff meetings.
• There's no job you can't work your way out of if you're clever and talented. If you're not clever and talented, then you're lucky to have a job at all, so quit your complaining.
• Always work like you're getting ready for the next job, even if you don't apply. It makes you look better.
• However, it's better to seem to work hard than to actually work hard. Learn the difference.
• And forget about sprezzatura. People resent you when you do twice their work in half the time and don't break a sweat. Trust me.
• Remember, the important thing is your life and career, not the library or your colleagues.
• Because, frankly, they don't really care about you. The library was there before you, and it'll go on being there after you've gone. Don't take it personally.
• Try not to take a job in public services, because servicing the public is annoying.
• Try not to take any sort of production-oriented job, like cataloging, because then you have measurable outcomes, and you don't want that. Someone might measure you and find you wanting.
• Try to join a department of pathetic losers. Sure, the meetings are painful, but you just look that much better come performance assessment time.
• Be smarter than everyone else. It saves a lot of time and energy.
• Your ultimate job is one like the Annoyed Librarian's, where you are really well paid for doing almost no work. But you must suffer for your art!

At Least Someone Benefits

In order to combat the alleged shortage of librarians, a library school in Missouri is getting over $600,000 in Federal grant money to train people not to be librarians.

At least someone is benefitting from the alleged "librarian shortage" we keep hearing so much about. You know the routine: "According to a 2004 study by the American Library Association, 45 percent of current librarians will reach age 65 between 2010 and 2020." I'm terribly concerned about this alleged potential shortage, as my loyal readers know (thanks, you two!), and I'm really concerned about how to fix this terribly important problem. Fortunately, someone else is trying to fix the problem as well.

Check out this article from the Show Me State.

"In the wake of what many [idiots] see as an impending national librarian shortage, MU’s School of Information Science and Learning Technologies is set to receive a grant to replace those leaving the profession."

Hey, wow, replacing those leaving the profession. That sounds like a good idea. And who are those people leaving the profession?

"With many librarians set to retire, especially those in senior positions, the grants are intended to aid in the education of those seeking to enter the profession and bolster its ranks."

Especially those in senior positions! Since all those leaving the profession are going to be geriatric library directors, perhaps we should recruit some of them. But we're trying to recruit new librarians now to replace all the retiring ones? Isn't this something ALA should have thought about, oh, TWENTY YEARS AGO! So what's this grant for? Is MU going to train some newbies to be library directors?

More importantly, is the grant going to "aid in the education of those seeking to enter the profession and bolster its ranks"?

Nope.

"The school got word on June 26 that it would receive $615,365 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to recruit and educate nine doctoral students. "

That's right. Doctoral students. Doctoral students in LIS, no less! Does this count as "entering the profession"? There must be some point to this. Are the doctoral students going to become library directors? Or even librarians? I don't think they'll be responsible for much rank-bolstering.

“(The nine students) will become educators,” said John Budd, a professor of information science and learning technology. “In their careers, they will probably reach thousands of people each.”

Educators!! Is there anyone less likely to be useful to libraries than "library educators"? Regardless, notice the logic here. It could be called Grant Logic. How do I justify getting half a million dollars when I'm not really fulfulling the purpose of the grant? Because I need money!

In all seriousness, how far are we at this point from addressing the future potential dearth of librarians in "senior positions." So we prepare these doctoral students, and they spend the rest of their careers inflicting upon us such exciting courses as "Libraries, Society, and You" and "Rapid Response Informatics." I should point out that NONE of these "doctoral students" is going to "enter the profession." They won't be librarians, and they will be of very little use to librarians.

They're getting a grant to pay a bunch of people in Missouri to become library science professors, who are going to reach thousands of people by teaching the most boring and useless classes in the entire universe!

Perhaps I'm in the minority here as in most other things. However, looking back on library school, I can honestly say I learned some things, and I had a couple of worthwhile classes, but I can just as honestly say I never learned anything from an actual library school professor that was either inherently interesting intellectually or practically useful for my job. Never. All my most interesting and useful classes were taught by librarians. And I went to one of the best library schools in the country, as you can probably tell by my sparkling prose (though I unfortunately missed the class in writing for librarianship).

I have a friend who became a library science professor after he failed at everything else, even at being a librarian, and he keeps telling me how much we librarians will learn if we just read library professors' articles, because apparently no one reads most of the "scholarly" output of library school professors except other library school professors. My friend doesn't take the obvious lesson from that, which is that he's doing research for a group that finds most of his research totally irrelevant to actually working in a library. And I oughta know whether something is relevant to being a librarian, because I am, in fact, a librarian.

At least Professor Budd is honest about it. He's not doing anything useless and underhanded, he no doubt thinks. He's helping to improve the "librarian shortage" by getting Federal grant money to train people NOT to be librarians, and to do research that no librarians will ever read but which will no doubt be incredibly fascinating to other library school professors. It makes perfect sense! Part of what annoys me is that a library school professor who in fact does do some interesting work has a hand in this.

"Budd will be working with others in the school to recruit students nationally to the project. For each of the nine students, the grant will cover tuition and include a $21,000 stipend. He said that the school hopes to attract students who have an interest in taking library faculty positions."

Free tuition and $21K certainly attract them! Is that $21K/year? Not bad for a grad student in Missouri, I bet. And if they're interested in library faculty positions, you can be sure they don't want to be librarians. Those who can't do, teach; and those who can't teach, teach library science.

But wait? Is this grant really meant to help save us from that terrible librarian shortage? Are we being totally honest here? Not according to yet another MU library professor.

The grant project is called “Educating Doctoral Students to Prepare the Next Generation of Public and Academic Librarians," so it tries to make us believe the problem is the librarian shortage. I mean, who else is going to prepare that next generation of librarians if we don't have any doctoral students? Who's more useful for educating future librarians that people who aren't librarians?

However, "Charles Seavey, associate professor at MU’s School of Information Science and Learning Technologies, published an article in 'American Libraries' in October about what he calls 'the coming crisis in education for librarianship.'" And what does he think the coming crisis is? Haven't we been assured by the best and the brightest at ALA that the crisis is the librarian shortage? But this must be a different crisis.

What could it be? I assume the coming crisis isn't that everyone is going to suddenly wake up and realize what a joke library science "education" has been for its entire existence. We all know that, so it wouldn't be news.

No, the crisis is different.

“It is past time to consider who will educate that next generation and where those library and information science faculty members will come from,” he wrote.

You see, the crisis is where the library school faculty will come from! Yes, that certainly sounds like a problem--for library school faculty! I can't see how that effects anyone else. Librarians need more library school professors like they need your grandmother's old issues of National Geographic.

I sure rest easy knowing $600K of Federal taxes are going to support 9 lousy Missouri doctoral students who might become library science professors. That will certainly solve someone's crisis. Maybe with more library school professors, the current library school professors will get reduced teaching loads and more sabbaticals. At least someone benefits.