I apologize if everyone is tired of this topic, but sifting
through these responses I've hit a raw nerve.

Someone made a joke at AAM last year that I found amusing then,
but becomes more disturbing all the time.  The jist is that the
*ideal* museum employee has 15+ years of experience with
research, conservation, exhibit design, visitor relations,
education, NAGPRA compliance, grant-writing and management, 2
PhD's and a MBA and is willing to work 80 hour weeks (including
weekends of course) for $10,000 and no benefits.

I find it quite disturbing this seems to be one of the only
fields in which an employee is expected to have the
qualifications of a tenured professor, CFO, statistician,
librarian, photographer, grammar school teacher, artist,
computer programmer, lab technician, and  the patience of Jobe.
 Does this level of expectation (albeit somewhat exaggerated)
not warrant adequate compensation?  Somehow I don't think
that's unreasonable.  Yes, I love my work, but then I would
prefer to suffer poverty  than take a job that wasn't
challenging and "worthwhile".  But is it so ridiculous to
expect a living wage and a little respect?  My fear is that a
field which manages to find these kinds of Renaissance people,
yet does not reward them in some way, will lose them to others
who will.  Corporations understand that quality of life is a
vital concern and that appropriate compensation (in whatever
form) is required to keep their best and brightest loyal and
productive -- ask anyone in HR or recruiting.  So now that we
have MBAs directing us, why does this not happen?  Last I
checked its much easier and less expensive to retain proven,
devoted employees dedicated to your success and community
relations than to constantly search for new.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com