I realize there have been letters that set forth some guidelines or averages
on the questions you raised.  About salaries, as you've found, the
"standards" are variable.  Unlike the AAUP with its long tradition of
surveying faculty salaries and publishing the averages by by institution and
rank, the museum field has shown very little interest in this kind of
research.

A decision to have a professional to care for the collection, and to exhibit
it effectively, is one that your own department needs to make.  If you
choose to exhibit, for educational purposes, and your department wants this
done effectively (with a high degree of interpretation of objects and
context) and to have changing exhibits from time to time, a curator (with
whatever background is appropriate) ought to be designated.

In 1992 the Southeast Museum Conference did such a survey among its members.
Relatively few museums responded.  Of the responses, among those
institutions labeled "science" or "general"  only those with budgets of
$300,000 and above employed "full curators," i.e., having "responsibility
for important collections, publications, and administrative duties.  Primary
responsibility for exhibition, publications, and donor contact related to
collection.  Supervision of one or two subordinates at most."

Average salary for "science" curators was $29,000 that year; for "general"
museums, $21,000.  Institutions with budgets higher than $500,000 paid their
curators only slightly higher.  The highest average was $44,701 for
"science" museums with budgets over $3 million.

Ross Weeks Jr.
Tazewell VA



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lawless <[log in to unmask]>


>Also, what size does a
>museum need to be to justify a full-time curator?  A half-time curator?
>And how might this size be measured?  You can access the museum I'm
>discussing through <http://www.twsu.edu/~ldhmawww>.
>*************************************