What to expect from library school graduates

Abstract

The issue of what can be expected from library school graduates is discussed. Library education programs have changed a great deal in the last 25 years, and they have become less homogeneous in some ways. In the mid-1960s and early 1970s, in response to demands by the school field, the curriculum in some schools expanded with the addition of courses in multimedia acquisition, organization, production, and use, and courses for school librarians in instructional design and program development, that would encourage the integration of school libraries into the instructional program of the school. In the past 10 years, very distinct changes have been sweeping library education programs. Radical curriculum changes to strengthen and enhance the involvement of libraries with technology applications and information dissemination have occurred. A review of curriculum changes across the range of library schools reveals that students have been moved far beyond knowing about technology to learning about its applications, and even the design of applications.

What to expect from library school graduates is an interesting topic. Ten years ago I could have told you with some certainty. Today, I am not so certain because library education is no longer as homogeneous as it once was. When I attended the University of Michigan as a graduate student, I had the same curriculum choices I would have had at any library school in the country. Gaining an understanding of the historic role and function of libraries in society and being introduced to the basic theories of librarianship were common to most students in all programs: to build/develop collections of resources, to organize collections, to develop services to make collections usable to those who need, want, and/or enjoy the right to those collections. We did not talk about access then, but when access became the driving word, the concept made sense. The other basic thing I came to understand is that implementing the basic tenets of librarianship in a practical sense, with integrity and understanding, means lifelong self-education and the ability to adapt to change, because change is a constant.

Library education programs have changed a great deal in the past twenty-five years, and they have become less homogeneous in some ways. In the mid-sixties and early seventies, in response to demands by the school field, the curriculum in some schools expanded with the addition of courses in multimedia acquisition, organization, production, and use, and courses for school librarians in instructional design and program development, that would encourage the integration of school libraries into the instructional program of the school.

Close on the heels of this expansion of a very traditional curriculum came the need for students who knew about computers. All schools began to change curricula in the late seventies and early eighties, some faster than others, and some with more sophistication and dedication to computer hardware. Embracing a range of communications technologies began for most schools with the addition of some computers (a few affluent ones put together a whole computer lab). It continued with renaming of schools to include information and management or science, and adding a few courses in information science, online searching, database construction, programming languages, et cetera. But the content of basic core courses (whatever their titles) remained pretty much as usual.

In the past ten years, however, very distinct changes have been sweeping library education programs. More radical curriculum changes to strengthen and enhance the involvement of libraries with technology applications and information dissemination have occurred, along with changes more radical than the mere renaming of schools. For example, we have seen the reorganization of schools, the development of specialized tracks, collaborative programs with other academic units, and the move to distance education via telecommunication.

When we review curriculum changes across the range of library schools, we find that students have been moved far beyond knowing about technology to learning about its applications, and even the design of applications, as is being implemented, for instance, at the University of Michigan. Some schools are no longer requiring cataloging as a core course. Other schools require a very small core, or no core at all. Library history, courses on the book, foundations or library in society are disappearing from curricula in some schools. Older existing cataloging and classification courses have given way to information storage and retrieval course offerings. Reference courses have been recast as reference and information Packaging courses, and courses in library administration have broadened into a much broader study of generic administration and managerial strategies.

We are also seeing other changes in the curriculum as educators address wider issues of professional preparation than some once saw as being within their purview. For instance, we are constantly being confronted by graduates who tell us of the vastly more complicated work environment in which they operate. They must organize huge quantities of information resources within and outside the library. They must adapt quickly to new technologies. Moreover, they must educate and reeducate their clienteles about new technologies. For instance, innovations involving computers--laptops, local-area and national networks, integrated systems, sophisticated online retrieval, CD-ROM databases, and interactive audiovisual systems such as computer-linked videodiscs--continue to transform the curriculum related to library information search, acquisition, retrieval, processing, and storage to an extent unimaginable a quarter century ago. And this is happening in all types of libraries, from the elementary school to the university.

For years, some members of the library education profession have been recommending that library education programs should become more unique, with schools varying specializations, concentrations, et cetera. The original idea was that some could specialize in academic libraries, some public, some school, or types of special libraries; schools could concentrate on specific functions and that potential students could flow to those programs. That idea was never given serious thought by most library educators for a variety of reasons, mostly economic. For the past two decades or so, geography has dictated student selection of programs. Most students give as a major reason for attending a specific program the geographical proximity and ease of access.

In the nineties, library schools are moving into more speciality options beyond the core course. First of all, there are no more schools of just library science. Upon reviewing the names of all forty-seven ALA-accredited programs, you will find that information science or information management dominates the choice of titles. So we now have an interesting collection of names. The University of California at Berkeley went through an historic upheaval three years ago and managed to survive, but their program name does not include the name "library" at all. Drexel has changed its name for the third time since the early eighties, when the "School of Library and Information Science" was superseded by "College of Information Studies." Effective July 1995, the name of the program is College of Information Science and Technology.

Name changes are important to reflect realistic programmatic options and directions. They are also psychological and useful for public relations and marketing to indicate to the rest of academe that we are changing and keeping up, and to recruit students who will be responsive to the new options in a traditional field, but who also had not realized that our field was an entre into other kinds of information service agencies.

Just a few words about some of the program options. The first options were, of course, in advanced degrees; the availability of the Ph.D. in a few schools has spread to many, with certificates of advanced study and sixth-year degrees--the specialist, if you will--becoming more prevalent. Several programs concentrated on technology by adding a second track in information science with an entire degree sequence, while others required a core, then movement into a second track. Others have completely reconfigured their programs with an emphasis on applications of technology, design, and communication.

Some, like us, are still in the more traditional mode, having selected the option of concentrating on the preparation of librarians who are able to respond to new patterns of service that is heavily influenced by technology, and who are able to use the technology to perform organizational and retrieval functions of libraries no longer bound by four walls. To meet this objective, these programs are integrating technology applications in all courses and creating short-term courses that change as new technologies develop.

Programs are developing joint programs or collaborative sequences with policy studies, higher education, journalism, business, history, and education. We are beginning a joint doctoral program with the department of curriculum and instruction which has a Ph.D. in curriculum and teaching. We will be admitting school library media specialists in large high schools and those who want to be district administrators, as well as those who want a better foundation of curriculum and teaching to serve their role as media specialists working with teachers and curriculum development. Our students in this program will have both a concentration of coursework and a dissertation in library and information studies.

Another major change in library education is the apparent return to undergraduate education. During the 1980s, several universities that already offered graduate programs began offering undergraduate programs in library and information fields, such as information resource management. In 1984, Drexel University began a five-year B.S. program in information systems through its College of Information Sciences, its graduate library school. Pittsburgh has entered this area, and several Canadian schools now offer undergraduate programs in archives and records management.

Organizational changes have also been prominent during the past eight to ten years. For a while the library education community was absolutely reeling from closings, and rumors of closings, of library schools. Very few people saw Oregon's closing of its program sixteen years ago as a signal, but by the time the same thing happened at the University of Southern California, Western Michigan University, Case Western Reserve, Peabody, Emory, Genesseo, Denver, then Chicago, and finally Columbia--the closing of which sent actual shock waves across the country--people began to take notice. Today, only forty-seven American colleges and universities offer graduate programs in library and information service that are accredited by ALA. These forty-seven constitute less than three-quarters of the number of institutions that offered such programs in the 1970s.

During the last few years, several programs have avoided closure and discussion of closure, but have not avoided being placed with other administrative units, one of the earliest being Rutgers University's, which was placed with programs in communication and journalism. The latest, UCLA's, has been placed administratively in the School of Education.

Distance education has become a hot topic in library education. Emporia University, the University of South Carolina, Syracuse University, and the University of Arizona have entered the arena of distance education on a large regional or national basis. Each has varying requirements for students to come to campus for summer sessions or special weekends central to most students in the program, meeting periodically with the instructor, and the technologies used to deliver the instruction. Other universities are developing programs limited to their own and neighboring states. Again, state regulations, technologies available, and needs of the field predominate as determinants of how programs develop.

What should we expect from graduates entering library service? It is evident from my comments that you are going to have applicants representing a broader range of curricula than in years before, and you might have a broader range of specializations presented to you. You may have to decide among applicants who have been prepared in education programs designed to graduate students who will survive the demise of the library. You may be faced with applicants who are highly skilled in technology but who need high levels of socialization into the mission of the profession, or you may be faced with graduates who come from more traditional programs that have been infused with the introductory technological skills, the ideal of accountable public service for diverse populations, and an understanding of the rich potential of the library as a superior educational opportunity for its users. You may be really lucky and be able to build an interesting staff of representatives from all of these directions. But I believe it is safe to say about many of the graduates in 1995 that:

1. They are beginners who have been exposed to more theories of library service than "how to do it good." No library school can prepare students for universal library operations, because there are none anymore. If you disagree with that, read about the early curriculum of Dewey's girls at Columbia and the early recommendations from noted public library directors for curriculum. That curriculum did freeze us in time for decades. There is a relationship between the move away from practical courses in library education to the wonderful development of a variety of service patterns and developments in libraries today.

2. As a corollary to number one, I believe all graduates are entering the field weaned from the idea that librarianship is a good choice for them because they love books and like people and want to spend their working days bringing the two together. I don't believe I need to comment on this, but we still receive personal data letters noting this as a reason for a career choice.

3. I would hope, but I cannot guarantee, that graduates will be socialized to the mission of libraries, their traditional role as repositories of the recorded word, their evolving role as centers for access to information wherever and however stored, and to a philosophy that libraries, as a public trust, owe integrity of access to all in their client pool.

4. I hope that all graduates will have been introduced to the role of professional associations in supporting the development of libraries, in helping interpret the role and value of libraries to their communities, and in providing access to continuing education and lifelong professional learning.

5. I believe most graduates will have a basic knowledge of the importance of planning for accountability and development as well as the basic tenets of planning.

6. Graduates will have knowledge of basic reference sources, both print and electronic, and will have some electronic searching skills. This will vary according to the programs from which they graduate, but none will arrive as full-blown searchers. They will have to be allowed and encouraged to develop their skills.

7. Students will not be fearful of technology in libraries. They have been immersed throughout their coursework in computers, word processing, e-mail, the Internet, faxes, voice mail, and a variety of other kinds of applications. Some will be more expert than others, and few will know every system that is available. Library directors cannot expect every student to be knowledgeable about every system and a master of equipment maintenance and repair.

8. Students have been taught that they are responsible for their own continuing education, and that if they are to have a productive career in their chosen profession they must continue to learn through the literature, through action research, through professional associations, through collegial networks, and through more formal education.

9. Students have been taught to expect and take advantage of the phenomenon of change as a constant.

Students will come back to us and tell us how disappointed they are that their hopes of making a difference are not materializing; they are too far down the line to be heard, the director does not sponsor evaluation, planning, and development.

Of equal importance is what students will find in their first jobs. I hope students will find a library staff that is still excited about what they do as librarians. I hope they will land in a library with a staff that is neither enraptured silly about technology nor scared stiff about the demise of their jobs.

Marilyn Miller is the Chair of the Department of Library and Information Services, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.