As someone who put in the time to get an MA in museum studies, (though it
was only 2 years + a summer session, and my wife had a good job so we didn't
have to subsist on either Ramen or mac&cheese) I do feel it was important,
and that it's importance is not recognized by those who haven't had the
experience.  This is not to say that the degree or certificate are the
be-all and end-all of museum qualifications.  However, the experienced
person with on-the-job experience knows only what he/she has done.  The
degree/certificate person (with no experience) has learned many things that
may never be used in their career, and may well need more initial OTJ
training at their first job.  But I firmly believe that experience + formal
education is better in the long run than education alone.

Two semesters of Legal and Ethical Issues has exposed me to potential
problems that I hope never to see.  But I know they exist, and I know how
they can be avoided, with an understanding that goes beyond just reading
Malaro's _Legal Primer_.  The person with only experience knows only what
they have encountered, or what their
superiors/mentors/colleagues/predecessors have encountered.  Now that
experience may be the equivalent of my two semesters in comprehensiveness.
But chances seem pretty good that it is not equivalent.

To use another argument: in the early days of engineering, there were many
good engineers who were self-taught through experience, who probably were
better than what the early engineering degree programs were putting out.
But those graduates soon surpassed those with just experience.  Today, it is
unthinkable to hire an engineer who has not had formal education _and_
passed a qualifying exam.  Granted that few museum decisions are as
potentially life-threatening as those faced by structural engineers, for
instance, and I am not advocating that the degree be required for
employment, nor that qualifying exams need to be given by AAM for those
wishing museum employment.  No need to try to carry a parallel too far.  But
it is a fairly recent example of how the value of formal education has
overtaken the value of experience alone.  I feel a similar comparison could
be made with the computer field, or even in many of the trades: carpentry,
plumbing, electrical work, etc.  I admit that it is _possible_ to pass the
bar exam _WITHOUT_ having a law degree.   But I think you'll find that
people who do that are extremely rare, and while I admit to having no idea
how many of those are hired by firms, my instinct tells me not many.  It may
also be possible to meet the other professional qualifications I mentioned
without formal training.  But again I suspect that the vast majority do get
that training first.

It is my impression that the museum field is now in that phase where formal
education is appreciated by some employers, but even those do not
necessarily require it, and its value is not yet universally agreed upon (as
evidenced by this list).


I hope that this has come across as an attempt to convince you that the MA
or certificate is not a waste of time/money/effort, and not just another
opportunity for someone to attempt to rationalize their expenditure of same.
I had some experience before going through the program, and I have had
experience since, and I do not need to convince _myself_  (nor, I think, my
current co-workers) that it was worthwhile.  Nor do I mean to place myself
ahead of others merely by virtue of my degree, or otherwise belittle those
who do not have one.  But I do hope that those of you involved in hiring
will not discount a person merely because they have a degree/certificate but
no experience.  I have seen too many positions advertised requiring 2 or 3
years' experience in that type of museum with no mention made of
substituting education beyond a bachelor's.


Larry Burke
Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania

"No man can have a firm mind who refuses apple dumplings."
-Attributed to Samuel Taylor Coleridge


---------------


Please, let's not get into the "I've spent 3 years of my life writing papers
and living on Ramen noodles to get an advanced degree" whine.

The intent of professional qualifications, from my understanding, is to
prove that you have actual practical knowledge of a subject or field through
tests, portfolios and other professional assessments.

While an advanced degree gives someone a base level of credibility and are
highly touted by those who have them, professional qualifications also give
people a level of credibility who don't have the degree but plenty of
practical work experience in a particular field. Some qualifications are
also not awarded unless you've had a number of years in a field as well as a
degree in the subject.

Personally, I feel like that professional qualifications are a good thing
for people - even more so than degrees in some cases - because they give
people who have practical experience and expertise a chance to be recognized
in fields where otherwise it's a money and time game to get the higher level
positions. (i.e. people who can't afford the time or money to get an
advanced degree can work their way up in the field and be respected as just
as qualified as someone who gets the advanced degree.)

Deb

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).