Professional qualifications

Henry Grunder <hgrunder<-a t->leo< . >vsla< . >edu> writes

>[Conservation DistList Instance: 10:88] contained yet another
>posting for a conservator position stating "Preference... given to
>candidates with an ... MLS degree." Why? What is the point? Would
>not a post-baccalaureate degree in (say) materials science, or
>organic chemistry... or mycology, be more relevant?

Uh oh, Mr. Grunder has opened the great un-openable can of worms in
the conservation profession.  Please be prepared for the sibilant
sounds from many respondents.  Mr. Grunder does bring to the floor a
very important aspect of conservation position announcements.  There
will be letters from pro and con, but with no final answer to his
question.  Sorry. They will intimate the need for people with a MLS
or Masters in Conservation through anecdotal evidence; the same
evidence used as a negative argument for the un-credentialed.  The
debate on the necessary qualifications of an incumbent range as wide
as the people who do the hiring.  I must, however, briefly
disqualify myself from this discussion--before others do it for
me--in that I have not a graduate degree in either Library Science
or Conservation. Now back to the brief  point.

As yet there are no discrete and unavoidable qualifications for
conservation positions.  There is no exam, no single set of
experiences, education, internship, fellowship, and the like that
are set in stoney--not yet.  The membership of the AIC will be
tackling this dilemma for years to come and I suspect we will become
more akin to other technical professions, in the desire to
pigeonhole practitioners.  To my mind it seems an oxymoron to
attempt standards in the field of the arts. Thus said, setting and
having standards of conduct and education are a sine qua non of any
profession. It is the 'getting' of the knowledge that usually is the
sticking point.  I am a great believer and follower of the AIC Code
of Ethics.  As we have learned from other professions, it should be
a higher calling to maintain in the fore the philosophical problems
with our work, as 'qualified' candidates are just as prone to
technical incompetence as others.  Conservation was built on the
work of people for closely allied fields within and without the arts
and this should be forever remembered when confronting standards for
the future.  There will always be sets of people within the field
who look askance upon others with disparate backgrounds.  That is
not unique to conservation or collections care in general.

We should try this system:

    People are considered individually, based upon ability--merit,
    without using the degree as a guarantor of ability.  Individual
    consideration can be agreed upon?

    Graduates and non-graduates cannot be equated, with judgment
    weighted too heavily in either direction.  Since all our work is
    for the long term, we need to carefully choose the custodians.

But:

    Realize that soon, being on the outside of the academic circles,
    will mean being in another field.  It is an inevitable lesson of
    history.

    That funds will continue to go to institutions and individuals
    that are in--or hire from--graduate programs.  A fact of being
    in a body politic.

This issue deserves a lengthy, constructive discussion, but I can
only say to Mr. Grunder that I am certainly not privy to the actual
rationale of this requirement.  Suffice it to say, employers will
hire who they want, schools will accept who they want, and give very
little of an explanation as to the concrete qualifications of either
the former or the latter. Confusedly yours,

Bryan Owen
Senior Preservation Technician
Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site
Brookline, Ma.

                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 10:90
                  Distributed: Tuesday, April 22, 1997
                       Message Id: cdl-10-90-013
                                  ***