Open Letter to the Book V Blogger who sparked ARCGate

Paperback Book Rage by Daven from Le Rage Comics

The Library communities response in #ARCgate bothered me. Not necessarily because of anything any one person said or did, but because of the whole climate it created. More then that I don't think any one really reached out to the creator of the video that set the whole thing off. Instead we just debated about whether ALA was just for librarians or not. I went back and found the video creators blog and I read her posts and about her. After looking at her post, and the other content I'd seen posted I decided that the best thing would be to write her myself. I'm posting it as an open letter because I hope that in the future rather then tearing people down, we can actually connect to them. I know I wish I had written the author of the Forbes piece. I'll be emailing the blogger a copy of my letter as well.

Forbes Flubs

Recently Forbes put a list of 10 best and 10 worst master's degrees on-line. They made the mistake of rating a Master Degree in Library Science as the worst. I take issue with their selection for obvious reasons. However, rather than just poo poo the state of libraries and feeding our self-image complex, I'm going to take umbrage with the poor reporting of Forbes.

According to Forbes:

"Library and information science degree-holders bring in $57,600 mid-career, on average. Common jobs for them are school librarian, library director and reference librarian, and there are expected to be just 8.5% more of them by 2020. The low pay rank and estimated growth rank make library and information science the worst master’s degree for jobs right now."

True, library salaries do tap out in the mid-range, and true like all public sector jobs, librarians aren't going to be in any great demand until Keynesian economics comes back into vogue (keepin' my fingers crossed for 2013). However, is getting a library degree really such a terrible idea?

According to those that track the numbers, getting an MLIS is probably a better option then getting a MBA, or MA in Journalism (Regretting your life choices now Forbes?). For instance newly minted librarians have about a 6.7% unemployment rate, not bad in this economy (Library Journal). New MBAs on the other hand have a unemployment rate of approximately 14% (Business Week), and a new MA in Journalism has a 16% chance of being unemployed (2010 Survey of Journalism and Mass Communication Grads).

Average salary wise librarians can't compete with the lucky MBA's who find jobs,they make an average of $79,806, according to a Business Week piece. But a new librarian makes about $5,000 more than a new Journo, who only pull in an average of $36,200. Library Jounral's annual 2011 placement report breaks salary down by region, but eyeballing it showed an average starting salary of about $42,000 for new librarians.

Of course cost of degree matters as well. A library science degree costs between $10K and $40K (2006), while that MBA will set you back an average of $60,000. Graduate degrees in Journalism are comparable to an MLIS in cost, but again there's a significant salary tradeoff, and that trade off continues over time with Journalism degrees starting salary decreasing, along with the overall prospects of the profession.

Running business well relies on having good information. Forbes as a business publication should probably be doing a better job checking it's facts. You can make an argument, as Forbes does that MLISs are a bad degree, you'd be using the wrong information to do it though. I suggest Forbes hirer more librarians to help it's reporters, after all it's like Neil Gaiman says, "Google can bring you back 100000 answers, a librarian can bring you back the right one."  #Truefact



I guess I got the right degree after all.

Edited 10:02PM 6/12/12 - Fixed Typos

Update - Graduated

While I conceived of this blog while a bookseller at Borders, I didn't really start posting on it until I started the process of Library School. Since then I've posted in spurts. Now that I have received my degree I hope to post here more often. Currently I've restarted work on the Bibliography project, I'm in the early stages of another book project, and I've got a book review on the burner right now. In short, despite not having a "real" job yet, I'll have lots of things to write about.

Keep it locked.

- Zack

Research Journal Update

I've written before an area of research I am interested in involving information's role in NPDA debate. Specifically, I want to understand how debaters use information and what role access to information plays in NPDA rounds. I've narrowed the area of my initial study down to a research question: Is there are correlation between wireless internet access affect NPDA round outcomes?

At the end of last term I created a study proposal. Since then, I've shown it to a few people and gotten positive and constructive feedback. I've learned a few things from that feedback. Most importantly I've learned that I need to operationalize my variables.

In the initial proposal I poorly defined the particular variables that would be tested. There were a few reasons for that, but one of the primary ones was uncertainty over the type and availability of data. I've done a preliminary survey of debate resources, and found that there is no widespread historical record of debate rounds, beyond the last three years, exists. Even then it isn't standard practice in the community. I don't have enough data to make that a conclusive statement, but it's my strong impression.

Research Journal - The heart of the matter

I'm studying the impact of wireless internet on NPDA debate. Why? Because I believe in order to tell the story of how debaters use technology, and more importantly make the knowledge useful we need to understand the impact of that technology. Why do these tools matter? How does is this medium the message?

Research Journal: 5 questions, and another one.

Sitting in the first class, I began brainstorming as we discussed the assignment. I've been thinking about doing this project for a while. In order to come up with a better idea for what I wanted to do I asked myself the five big questions: Who, What, Where, When, and Why?

Who: NPDA debaters
What: Information/decision processes
When: Recent past/ contemporary
Were: United Sates
Why: Debaters model leaders(?)

After I asked my self those questions I asked my self why for each one.

Who: NPDA debate has a extemporaneous nature and time/evidence constraints that reward using materials found on the fly as much as adequately preparing for a debate.
What: Structural constraints, attitudes towards research, and extemporaneous nature make this a good test environment.
When As I've mentioned the emergence of technology has impacted the event at a meta level. While the shapes of the rounds have stayed the same, the tools used outside are getting better. Looking at debaters in this environment mirrors the same sort of emerging paradigms we see in industry and government as technology becomes more embraced.
Where: It's familiar to me. I have resources and contacts that I wouldn't have if I examined Canada's debate teams.
why: If you want to get a good job, you have to do interesting meaningful research.

I found that asking myself these questions and expanding them out was a helpful foundation for moving forwards with my research. As I mentioned before my interest in debate is more focused on how debaters use information. However, I've realized that what makes that research valuable is laying a ground work that shows the value of information to that particular community. My next step was brainstorming possible questions. As I progressed in my brainstorming I found that some of those possible questions or research ideas wouldn't work. Coming back to these questions has been helpful in staying focused on workable approaches, and keeping my research focused.

Research Journal: The subject

I came to librarianship through a strange path. I was a collegiate debater. I know people who were debaters in high school who are librarians, but it's not the same. The level of competition just isn't there in the high school form of the activity. Nor is the same level of abstraction, discourse, argumentation, scholarship, and chicanery. It's like the difference between playing football in high school, and playing college football.