The argument that is stated here by Linda Young, probably should be
coupled with those arguments about low pay since they may well go
hand-in-hand.

I have stated several times that perhaps museum studies should start at
the undergraduate level and extend into graduate school.  Two years is
probably stretching packing in enough information, but then again it does
depend on the programme, instructors and material covered (and there is
considerable information available from management, curation,
conservation, facilities planning, science/art/historic/ethnographic
institutions, changing philosophies in collections, exhibition, curation,
education, community interaction, fundraising and on and on...).  But in
a one-size-fits-all society, even qualifications provide little insight
into the potential of an individual's talent and vision (is the dog
wagging his tail, or the dog being wagged by the tail?).

I would be reluctant to say that two years would see me through museum
studies with enough education, although it would be a good opening into
an area.  Still I would want to look at a person before I made such
demands of a PhD-first hurdle. . . or at least I would be willing to ask
for experience or alternatives.

Dave Wells

On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Linda Young wrote:

> Rachel Bernhardt's query about what museum employers really want touched me
> on a sore spot.  I teach museum studies: I prepare graduates for work in
> museums and heritage organisations.  But the local branch of Museums
> Australia (Oz version of AAM) has recently sponsored a study on the
> effectiveness of museum internships, and (though this doesn't all come out
> in the still-draft report) our consultant found that higher-level museum
> employers give very little credibility or value to a museum studies
> qualification.  For senior curatorial positions, they want the prestige of
> a PhD; for junior positions they want evidence of academic ability.  The
> truth is they regard the Diploma or Masters in museum studies as somewhat
> micky mouse.
>
> This is pretty devastating news for me.  However, when I look into my own
> attitudes, I realise that before I began teaching the subject, I too shared
> the micky mouse view (need I say that I learned museum business on the job
> - so who needs a qualification?).  It's only since I began carefully
> devising and conducting courses that I understood how useful this would
> have been to me fifteen years ago, or how appropriate it would be for
> people presently working in museums.  I don't think I'm merely justifying
> my own job in saying this - we actually do a good job in basic museum
> techniques, introduction to philosophical issues, exposure to the latest
> literature and its arguments, and experience in applying all the foregoing.
>
> I guess that until there is a generation of senior managers who themselves
> undertook museum studies as juniors will the qualification rise in esteem.
> I wonder when that will be...
>
> Depressed,
> Linda Young
> Cultural; Heritage Management
> University of Canberra
[log in to unmask]
>