someone wrote:
>> Another would be to offer internships not only to qualified people but
>> also to teenage mothers, people transitioning out of welfare, displaced
>> homemakers, what are termed "at risk" youth...

Laura Mahoney:
>> I am following this discussion with interest, but have refrained from
>> responding since I honestly haven't been sure how to.  (I'm an Anglo
>> female who personally feels at a disadvantage since I am never, and
>> probably never will be, part of a target population for hiring initiatives
in
>> museums).  I do take exception to this one comment, however. While I
>> agree that internships should be offered to people other than students,
>> etc. I do think that they should at least be qualified -- perhaps with some
>> prior volunteer experience if not education.  Most all museums that I
>> know will take volunteers of any background (hey, who can turn down
>> free and willing labor!), but an internship typically involves a great
deal of
>> time on the part of a supervisor and I do not think it is too much for a
>> supervisor to require some prior experience.

kjk:
my reading of the original post is that the author is calling for
internship positions to be created or targeted based on the specific
skills or cultural knowledge of the potential intern. for example, if an
institution is considering presenting exhibitions or events aimed at
getting, say inner-city women into the room, why not hire a woman from the
inner city to help work on some aspect of the program?  she'd have to be
qualified for some aspect of the work as she (theoretically) knows the
target community better than the staff. the institution would in fact be
hiring someone qualified for the job, as the job is being tailored
specifically for her qualifications.  she will gain museum experience on
the job, which is what (i always thought) an internship is supposed to be
about.

if i'm misreading the original post and the call is to simply hire based
on color, gender, religion, etc.  then i'm completely opposed. any
employee, it seems to me, has to be able to bring something tangible to
the institution.

either way, we should avoid confusing the terms "qualified" and "experienced."

Gregory Scheib:
>Cant agree with you on this one Laura.  You've got to get your foot in the
>door somewhere, and prior museum experience/volunteerism doesnt need to be
>a pre-requisite for a first time internship -- and frankly, volunteers
>need just as much supervision and mentoring as an intern does.

kjk:
depends what you have them do. when i was in position of supervision, i
tended to give more responsible (read: hands on/potentially dangerous to
files, computers, etc.) work to interns or volunteers with more
experience.  those with less experience could work on mailings, etc.
(read: tasks that don't require a lot of trust).  of course if i was
available to keep an eye on them, the responsibility curve went up for
everyone.

we've got to treat people as individuals and not as members of groups.
some volunteers/interns are more capable at various tasks than others.
people fall into these job categories for various reasons, and their
official titles rarely tell the whole story of their individual expertise.
the same goes for groupings imposed by society (which is why i am opposed
to hiring or disqualifying from hiring based on race, gender, etc.).

i do agree that one must get one's foot in the door somewhere and lack of
museum experience shouldn't necessarily be a detriment (i'd prefer working
with someone with drive and enthusiasm to someone lacking these but having
museum experience).

as i said above, and as your post implies, we must avoid confusing the
terms "qualified" and "experienced."

however, at the risk of digressing:  my own (pessimistic view) (based on
what i'm personally seeing more and more, and based on the the many job
descriptions posted on MUSEUM-L for internship positions) is that "getting
one's foot in the door" means a lot more responsibility than it used to.
the money just doesn't seem to be there to hire competent, qualified AND
experienced people for regular staff positions, so interns and volunteers
are being used more and more in their places.

i'm seeing far too many internships at very low rates of pay being posted
that call for candidates to have the abilities to design database systems,
supervise volunteers, write grants, work out budgets, etc.  five years
ago, these would have been regular staff positions!  (my fear is that in
five years they will become volunteer positions.)

how my digression relates to this issue is that given that the typical
internship position is beginning to require more and more previously
gained expertise, i don't have much hope that those who are not
specialists of some sort or other will find many opportunities as museum
interns unless museums create positions specifically for them.

that is, if you want to hire minorities or women of specific backgrounds
without prior museum experience, you are going to have to create positions
where being a minority or woman of a specific background IS a field of
expertise in itself. (i.e., as intern/consultants for specific exhibits,
etc.)

it's sad that, since there seems to be no middle ground, museums seem to
be either hiring "interns" (at next-to-nothing pay) who are in reality
qualified to be regular staff, or they are hiring people perfectly
qualified to be interns to do work beyond their skills.

--
please read the text before responding publicly.
i do not respond to unsolicited email.
kjk