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]