I'd like to buck the crowd a little and speak *against* the idea of an
officially sanctioned accreditation sponsored by AAM.  I think it is an
idea that has some merit, but I also see some problems with actual
implementation, and besides, I hate to see anything be unanimous.

  It may look from the outside that these plans work well for Doctor's,
Lawyer's, Teachers, and Architects, but one thing we must remember is
that if a museum professional is less than adequate at their job no one
will die, no innocent people will go to jail, no building's will fall,
and no one's children will be doomed to illiteracy.  A bad exhibit, a
poorly planned event, a botched application grant just doesn't compare
and will never create the sense of immediacy that an incompetent in these
other professions will create.

Will it create higher salaries for "accredited professionals?"  Maybe.
But one need look no further than the growth of Physicians Assistants,
paralegals, teacher's aides and adjunct faculty to see how many large
institutions are hiring less credentialed people and shoving more work on
to less qualified people.  I myself was told point blank by more than one
person that I was LESS marketable as a school teacher with a Master's
Degree in hand because any school system would have to pay me a higher
starting salary than someone with only a bachelor's.  More bang for the
buck as it were.   Let's for a minute assume that there was an AAM
requirement for a certain percentage of employees at a given institution
to be certified in order to be accredited as was put forth on this list.
What would a museum on the low side of that threshold who desires
accreditation do?  Given all the hand-wringing on this list on the topic
I would say they would fire a couple of uncertified employees (or not
replace ones that leave) and accomplish more of their work with
contractors, consultants, and other non-employee help thereby raising
their percentage while accomplishing the same amount of work and not
having to pay for professional development which many small museums
cannot afford.

It is also apparent that many of the most regulated professions (whether
by professional organizations or by guilds or unions) are arguably the
least diverse in terms of minorities or philosophical outlook.  Under the
disguise of keeping standards high people who are not part of the
official network, people who have not graduated from the right school, or
people who do not know or agree with prevailing belief can be kept out.
The most egregious example of this is the Hollywood guild system which
can keep talented professionals out of high paying jobs for decades
because they have not worked the right number of hours for the right
companies or they cannot convince current members to nominate them.
Subsequently, for all of their liberal, progressive image, there are few
industries harder for minorities and women to break into than the motion
picture industry.  And then there is the perennial accusation that law
schools and medical schools are keeping the supply of doctors and lawyers
artificially low to keep salaries and their power within the profession
and industry high.

Can't happen here you say?  Of course it can.

It may sound like a good idea to all of the people on this list, but we
are a fairly homogeneous group of people. All interests are not
represented.  A certification program might (I repeat, might) raise some
salaries, but the result would be more reliance on non-employee labor,
more bureaucratic paper work for institutions and individuals, more
financial burdens on small museums and any museum who wishes
accreditation by the AAM (an already prohibitively expensive procedure
for many institutions) and the closing off of any avenue into the
profession other than the one's approved of by the certification
committee.  I love this profession precisely because it is full of people
from so many different backgrounds with so many different experiences who
are judged by the quality of their work not which course they took or
what school they went to.  A perfect system?  Of course not.  But will
putting letters after your name make you a better exhibit designer, a
better educator, a better grant writer or marketer? No.  Will it make you
more ethical or adhere to professional standards? Of course not (Has it
worked that way for doctor's, lawyer's, or accountants?).  All it will
mean is that you have jumped through the approved set of hoops, and as
valuable as those hoops may be, having a staff full of hoop jumpers will
not make any museum better at what they do.

Matthew White
Director of Education
B&O Railroad Museum
[log in to unmask]