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]