Hello again,

I continue to read with interest the emails on 
this topic.  Still more emails are coming in to 
me personally by folks on the list who have 
concerns but fear speaking their mind in a public 
forum where current or future supervisors, 
employers, and/or instructors will read and 
possibly form a negative assessment of the 
individual.  This reminds me of a story my mother 
once told to me, called "The Emperor's New 
Clothes"...

Please allow me reply to one paragraph in 
particular of Richard Cox's recent comments, from 
his email on this subject dated 6/16.  Let's read 
it closely and think about its claims.  It may 
make an interesting intellectual project for our 
group of well-educated readers.

Richard Cox writes:

>There is a right way to become an archivist and 
>not everything can be learned on the job.


I reply:

Is that true?  Even if it is, I gave other 
avenues that would compliment on-the-job training 
with qualified mentors, such as attending 
conferences, self-education, and ultimately, 
being tested for competency.  So my question to 
Cox is, "are you saying there is only ONE right 
way?"  To be a professional lawyer, the 
California State bar offers several right ways to 
obtain legal education; only one of which is by 
way of formal university education.  Would you 
admit that there are other, equally valid ways of 
obtaining education, other than through a 
university graduate program?


Richard Cox writes:

>  There is a knowledge to our field (if there is 
>not, then we are not a discipline) and there is 
>a need for education (different from training).


I reply:

There is knowledge in every field, to include 
plumbing, baseball, and stamp collecting!  Should 
all fields of knowledge require demonstrated 
competency, as evidenced with an advanced degree? 
If not, then which ones should?  Also, how do you 
differentiate education from training?  This is 
crucial for understanding the following passages.


Richard Cox writes:

>   As two recent observers about higher education 
>have noted, ìTo succeed in education is not to 
>succeed in what one sets out to do, or even to 
>succeed in doing whatever is within the realm of 
>possibility; success means to succeed in doing 
>something worth doing.î (James Engell and 
>Anthony Dangerfield, Saving Higher Education in 
>the Age of Money [Charlottesville: University of 
>Virginia Press, 2005], p. 128]


I reply:

So, you are saying here that to succeed in 
education is to succeed in doing something worth 
doing.  That would translate into this: 
Education = Something Worth Doing.  Hmmmm....I'm 
not quite sure what the point of this statement 
is.


Richard Cox finishes this paragraph with the following:

>   We need education, not merely apprenticeship, 
>credentialing, practical information, etc., 
>because the archival mission is important to 
>society (and, actually, there is quite a range 
>to salaries for such positions).


I reply:

So you are saying that education is different 
from apprenticeships, credentialing, and 
practical information.  Could you explain that 
difference?  It is my experience that a 
university education is just ONE particular 
option for becoming educated.  Are you asserting 
that we need that particular form of education 
(the type that universities offer) because the 
archival mission is so important?  Could you 
demonstrate the validity of that claim?

I'm sorry for appearing dense, but I failed to 
find much substance in the paragraph.  Please 
know that I'm quite willing to be persuaded to 
your position if the argument presented is 
compelling.

Here was my original question: Must that 
education and training come in the form of 
advanced degrees at expensive universities, or 
could it come from the within the work 
environment, study on one's own, and at 
conferences?

We have become a society that demands more and 
more formalized credentials for obtaining entry 
level employment.  If we really want to demand a 
level of demonstrated competency, then why not 
simply require passing a test, similar to the bar 
exam?  This would allow bright and dedicated 
college graduates to study on their own, work 
within the field, and develop competency through 
hands on experience.


Thanks for your time,
John



PS....Here is Richard Cox's complete paragraph:

There is a right way to become an archivist and 
not everything can be learned on the job.  There 
is a knowledge to our field (if there is not, 
then we are not a discipline) and there is a need 
for education (different from training).  As two 
recent observers about higher education have 
noted, ìTo succeed in education is not to succeed 
in what one sets out to do, or even to succeed in 
doing whatever is within the realm of 
possibility; success means to succeed in doing 
something worth doing.î (James Engell and Anthony 
Dangerfield, Saving Higher Education in the Age 
of Money [Charlottesville: University of Virginia 
Press, 2005], p. 128]  We need education, not 
merely apprenticeship, credentialing, practical 
information, etc., because the archival mission 
is important to society (and, actually, there is 
quite a range to salaries for such positions).
-- 
John Erdmann
Graduate Student
Library & Information Science
Email:  [log in to unmask]
Phone:  206-685-5240

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>