Subject: Professional qualifications
Recently after a Bay Area Conservation Guild Meeting, I was having lunch with some local conservators and we were discussing treatments and training issues. The two conservators mentioned that the training programs accepted their interns and, as conservators in private practice, they were expected to accept interns and train them, as a means for prospective students to the programs to get their initial experience. They thought this was contradictory, however, as they were unable to apply for jobs in museums which required training in the programs. As usual, this went in one ear and out the other until I returned to my lab and picked up my January AIC Newsletter and completed reading it. I read through the job offerings and was surprised to find 12 conservator positions offered of which 7 required graduation from a "recognized conservation program" or a degree in conservation. 5 others accepted advanced degrees or other extensive training. This is surprising given the fact that the AIC membership has fought for years to establish proficiency as a skills based definition and not a degree based identity. I then called two of the institutions requiring degrees and asked how they determined "recognition". One told me that this was determined by the Chief Conservator but that in practice they accepted people who had substantial training and abilities (ie, they didn't really limit applicants to degree programs even though they published that they did). The other institution stated that they only accepted graduates and they did not recognize all program graduates (I specifically asked about one program and was told they didn't accept their graduates). Only 3 in the US were mentioned and "others" in Europe, one in Canada. This is disturbing as I asked if "recognized" had any official reference, as in AIC recognition, etc. and the answer was no. This limitation of equal access to jobs is not only unfair, but goes against long standing AIC policy. People should be considered for employment based on their skills not on a piece of paper. It seems to me that people who have attained a professional degree of competence should be recognized as such and considered equally with graduates on a skills basis. Perhaps job offerings should simply state as required knowledge that of professional membership in the AIC (Professional Associate or Fellow status). By having job offerings in the AIC Newsletter which clearly discriminate against some members, the AIC appears to condone the practice. Niccolo Caldararo Director and Chief Conservator Conservation Art Service *** Conservation DistList Instance 12:63 Distributed: Monday, February 1, 1999 Message Id: cdl-12-63-001 ***Received on Monday, 1 February, 1999