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.. >