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]>