As Chris says,  I think we've said enough about salaries to last us a
lifetime.  To see this discussion breakdown into teensy bitsy stuff like
statistics and psychology and whatnot is sort of long-winded.  Sometimes
curators do become administrators.  Sometimes directors don't come from
the museum field.  Sometimes we try to communicate more than we need to.
It has been a very healthy discussion.  Why don't we talk about it as a
free-for-all panel discussion in the next AAM meeting?  I'm not gonna be
heading the show.  Find someone with a thicker skin.  Maybe I'll just sit
in the audience.

O


Olivia S. Anastasiadis, Curator  (it's me talking here)
Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace
[log in to unmask]

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:47:38 GMT Hodcarry <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>To drone on a bit more.  My concept of a curator's position is one
>that is
>responsible for a "collection" that collection  can be rocks, bugs,
>guns,
>shoes, garden tools or even buildings.  Part of that responsibilty is
>having in-depth knowledge of that collection.  Being a curator should
>be a
>career path by itself. A curator is, again in my view, not an
>administrator not someone who is putting in a couple of years before
>they
>can move up  to being a director or assistant director.  Of course,
>every
>year far more historic sites of one sort or another open than close so
>overall employment goes up.  Art museums and natural history museums
>are a
>different kettle of fish  and are areas where I have much less
>experience..
>