Category: LIS Education

The MLS Is Not the Problem: A Response

Editor’s note: We welcome a guest blog post from Ben Rawlins, Associate Dean for Outreach, Engagement and Collections at the University of Kentucky Libraries.

Bryn Geffert’s recent Inside Higher Ed essay argues that the MLS degree is an obstacle to hiring, a barrier to diversity, and an increasingly optional credential in academic libraries. His survey data from R1 and R2 institutions is real, and the hiring challenges he documents are real. His diagnosis, however, misses the mark, and his argument carries implications that deserve more scrutiny than the piece provides.

I write as an Associate Dean at an R1 research institution where librarians hold faculty status, where I have been involved in hiring, mentoring, and evaluating MLS-holding colleagues for years. My concern is not with the idea that library education needs to improve. It most certainly does. My concern is with the slide from that legitimate observation to the conclusion that the credential itself is the problem.

The MLS Is a Formation Credential

Geffert treats the degree primarily as a skills-delivery mechanism, then faults it for not delivering every skill administrators want. The MLS is not principally a skills credential. It is a professional formation credential. The ALA’s Core Competencies of Librarianship place the foundations of the profession first among all competency areas, requiring graduates to “employ the ethics, values, and foundational principles of the library profession” and to “promote democratic principles and intellectual freedom” (ALA, 2022). The ALA’s Core Values, updated in 2024, explicitly ground the entire accreditation framework for library and information science programs in commitments to access, equity, intellectual freedom, privacy, and the public good (ALA, 2024). Practitioners and scholars have long argued that the MLS provides the foundational knowledge and values necessary for socialization into the field and that degree completion unifies librarians with a common professional identity (Holley, 2016). Research on librarian professional identity supports this framing, finding that professional formation is understood as a process over time, defined in part by benchmark events and the internalization of professional norms and values, rather than a one-time credential transaction (Pierson et al., 2019). A subject PhD does not initiate that process. On-the-job experience may eventually transmit some of it. But that is a longer and less reliable path, and it places the burden of professional socialization entirely on individual institutions rather than on the shared educational infrastructure the profession has built.

One Size Does Not Fit All Institutions

Geffert’s argument treats R1 and R2 institutions as if they share a uniform personnel structure, but the reality is considerably more complex. Academic librarians are classified differently across institution types, some hold faculty status with full ranks, tenure, and governance rights equivalent to teaching faculty; others hold academic or professional staff status; still others occupy hybrid classifications unique to their institutions. This variation is not incidental. It is structural, and it has direct implications for how the MLS functions as a credential.

At institutions where librarians hold faculty status, the MLS is not simply a hiring preference. It is the terminal professional degree that anchors the faculty appointment itself. The ACRL Standards for Faculty Status for Academic Librarians state explicitly that “the MLS/MLIS degree is considered the terminal degree for this appointment.” The ACRL Standard for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure is equally direct: “any librarian appointed to a college or university library faculty shall have the appropriate terminal professional degree.” Notably, even the ACRL Standards for Academic Librarians Without Faculty Status, written specifically for institutions where librarians do not hold faculty rank, still identifies the MLS from an ALA-accredited institution as the terminal degree for the profession. In other words, the professional standards framework treats the MLS as foundational across classification types, not just in faculty contexts.

The ramifications of devaluing or treating the MLS as optional are therefore not uniform across the profession, they are most acute precisely at the research-intensive institutions Geffert surveyed. At institutions where librarians hold faculty status, moving away from the MLS as the terminal degree credential does not simply expand a hiring pool. It raises fundamental questions about the basis for faculty appointment, the legitimacy of promotion and tenure review, parity with other faculty in governance and compensation, and the standing of librarians as full academic partners. These are not administrative details. They are the foundation of the professional standing that faculty librarians have built over decades. An argument for credential flexibility that does not account for these downstream consequences is not a complete argument, it is an administrator’s convenience framed as a professional reform.

Two Different Arguments

The claim that library schools are not producing graduates with sufficient skills in data science, GIS, digital scholarship, and other areas may well be true. This supports the conclusion that library schools need reform, not that the credential should be treated as optional. These are different arguments, and Geffert slides between them without acknowledging the distinction. The appropriate response to a medical school producing graduates with clinical gaps is to reform the curriculum, not to suggest that hospitals hire biology PhDs instead of MDs. Treating the MLS as optional undermines the case for investing in library education at exactly the moment that investment is most needed, and sends a signal to the market that the programs producing that credential are dispensable, even as we ask them to do better.

Economics and Politics

Geffert frames difficulty hiring candidates with skills in data science, GIS, and digital scholarship as evidence that the MLS pipeline is failing. There is a more direct explanation he does not consider: the compensation structures of academic libraries make these positions economically uncompetitive for the candidates he is hoping to attract, and the political environment in many states makes certain institutions genuinely difficult places to recruit to regardless of credential requirements.

On compensation, the numbers are telling. The median annual wage for academic librarians was $64,320 in May 2024, with early-career positions frequently starting between $50,000 and $65,000 (BLS, 2024). By contrast, the median annual wage for data scientists, one of the specific skill areas Geffert identifies as a gap, was $112,590 in May 2024, with projected job growth of 34 percent through 2034 (BLS, 2024). A candidate with a PhD in data science or geography who is weighing a position in an academic library against industry or government alternatives is not being deterred by credential requirements. They are being deterred by a salary structure that academic libraries largely cannot compete with. Opening the credential to subject PhD holders does not change that math at all.

The broader political environment compounds these economic pressures. Across a significant number of states, legislatures have targeted DEI offices, restricted curricula, and weakened faculty governance structures, creating conditions in which recruiting becomes genuinely difficult, independent of credential requirements (AAUP 2024a; AAUP 2024b). Professionals with the specialized skills Geffert identifies have substantial labor market mobility. A data scientist or digital scholar with options is unlikely to accept a below-market salary at an institution operating under political constraints that threaten academic freedom, regardless of whether the position requires an MLS or a subject PhD. The credential is not the barrier. The conditions of the work are.

This matters because Geffert’s argument implicitly assumes that relaxing the credential requirement creates a larger and more capable pool of willing applicants. If the economic and political conditions of academic library positions are what is actually limiting the pool, widening the credential gate does not address the underlying problem. It simply shifts who is excluded by those conditions from MLS graduates to subject PhD holders.

The Diversity Argument Collapses Under Scrutiny

Geffert argues that because the MLS pipeline is 87 percent white, opening hiring to subject PhD holders would help diversify the profession. The fields he identifies as sources of the skills libraries need are themselves deeply homogeneous. The NSF’s Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023 report documents that underrepresented minorities (Hispanic, Black, and American Indian or Alaska Native) collectively account for 37 percent of the U.S. college-age population but earned only 16 percent of science & engineering doctoral degrees in 2020, a gap that widens at every step up the degree ladder (NCSES, 2023). Women remain underrepresented at all degree levels in physical and earth sciences, mathematics and computer sciences, and engineering (NCSES, 2023). Black students earned only 5 percent of engineering bachelor’s degrees in 2020 despite constituting 14 percent of the college-age population (NCSES, 2023). Geography, the home discipline for GIS, and one of the specific skill areas Geffert names as a gap, “is behind virtually all other fields of study examined across all degree types in terms of racial and ethnic representation,” with doctoral geography programs consistently trailing even other social sciences in diversity (AAG, 2023). Research on doctoral training across science and technology fields finds that Black men and women experience the greatest and most consistent loss of representation across the transition from bachelor’s to doctoral to postdoctoral stages (Hofstra et al., 2023). Swapping MLS pipelines for PhD pipelines in STEM, GIS, and related fields does not solve a diversity problem. It trades one homogeneous pipeline for another while abandoning the professional formation infrastructure the field has built.

The Unasked Question

There is a dimension this piece does not address at all, and it may be the most important one. Librarianship is approximately 82 percent female as of 2023 (BLS, 2024). Calls to bypass or devalue the credential of a female-dominated profession have a well-documented history that should give us pause. Sociological research by Levanon, England, and Allison found that as the proportion of women in an occupation grows, relative wages in that occupation decline — evidence of what researchers call occupational devaluation, the systematic undervaluing of work done by women (Levanon, England, and Allison, 2009). Seale and Mirza have argued directly in the library literature that academic librarianship’s turn toward non-MLS credentials is “inextricable from its search for markers of professionalization outside of librarianship, in the form of non-MLS degrees, more appealing domains of knowledge, and nonfeminized types of labor,” and that removing the MLS requirement “will not address these broader issues” (Seale and Mirza, 2020). Research published in College & Research Libraries has further shown that “the feminization of library work, and in particular the undervaluing of emotional labor required of public-facing roles like reference and instruction, serves as a way to continually devalue feminized work to uphold patriarchal norms” (Bryant, Bussell, and Halpern 2019).

We are watching the same dynamic play out in real time across other female-dominated professions. In 2025, the Department of Education reclassified nursing, social work, teaching, physical therapy, and audiology as non-professional degrees for student loan purposes — fields that are between 70 and 88 percent female (National Nurses United, 2026). As one university dean observed in response, “it is concerning that many of the professions in this category are women-dominated professions. This appears to be part of a larger attempt to undermine and minimize professional roles of women in our society” (University of Pittsburgh, 2025). The pattern of credential devaluation in female-dominated professions is not abstract. It is structural, it is historical, and it is happening now. An argument for treating the MLS as optional that does not engage with this pattern is an incomplete argument.

What the Profession Needs

None of this means the status quo is acceptable. Library schools must do more to develop graduates with the technical and interdisciplinary competencies the field needs. Institutions should invest in professional development that builds skills not fully addressed in graduate programs. The profession should have an honest and sustained conversation about where library education is falling short and demand better from its accredited programs, and work with them to make those changes. What the profession should not do is treat the credential as the source of its problems. The claim that library schools need to do better and the claim that the MLS itself is an obstacle are not the same claim. Conflating them, as Geffert does, redirects the profession away from the more important conversation about how to strengthen library education rather than abandon it.

To be clear, this is not an argument that subject PhD holders cannot succeed as academic librarians or that institutions should never consider candidates without an MLS. There are contexts where such hires make sense, and many non-MLS professionals have made genuine contributions to the field. The argument here is narrower and more specific: that Geffert has not made a sound case for systematically devaluing the MLS as a professional credential. His survey documents real hiring frustrations, but frustration is not analysis. The problems he identifies (skills gaps, diversity deficits, unfilled positions) have causes that his proposed solution does not address, and consequences for institutional classification, professional formation, and the gendered history of credential devaluation that his piece does not engage. A better argument for credential flexibility is possible, thoughGeffert has not made it. The MLS is not a barrier to a better profession. It is one of the foundations on which a better profession can be built, if we are willing to invest in it rather than look for a way around it.

Mentoring MLIS Students on the Job Market: How to make mentorship work for you and your mentees

Editor’s note: We welcome a guest blog post from Lexi Kadis, Teaching and Learning Librarian at the University of Maryland Libraries.

I was in a state of perpetual déjà vu throughout the Spring 2026 semester. Just a year ago, I was on the academic librarian job market—revising CVs, writing cover letters, interviewing (rinse and repeat)—and now, I was helping six Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) graduate students navigate the job search process.

I work as the Teaching and Learning Librarian at University of Maryland Libraries where I am also a co-director of the Libraries’ Reference and Teaching Fellowship (RTF), a three-semester, scaffolded professional development program that prepares MLIS students to be academic librarians. Since its founding in 2015, the Fellowship has supported more than 50 Fellows and has a proven track record of helping students find jobs (I should know, as I am a 2025 RTF alumna myself!).

Over the past semester, I have learned that supporting MLIS students on the job market takes a great deal of time, energy, and emotional labor. While I am a part of a team of four librarians who mentor our Fellows, I understand that for many librarians, providing mentorship and guidance to graduate students is a siloed act of service to the profession. To that end, I wanted to share my experiences and perspectiveon how to provide effective and sustainable mentorship to MLIS students.

Don’t Be the Cure-All

I first want to acknowledge that many graduate students turn to their library supervisors and mentors for job search guidance because of a lack of support from MLIS programs. Many of our Fellows have noted that the coursework and infrastructure of their graduate program has not prepared them to apply for academic librarian positions. From knowing when to start applying to jobs to turning resumes into CVs to preparing for full day interviews with job presentations, the hidden curriculum of the academic library job process is not being taught in library science classes.

Given the deficit of structural support—something you may have experienced in your own MLIS program—it is easy to want to be a cure-all for your mentees. However, trying to provide all the solutions is not a sustainable model for mentorship, particularly when it comes to the job search process. Based on my own experience, it is important to clearly communicate to your graduate students the types of help you can provide and when they should seek support elsewhere. Even if their MLIS program does not have a robust job search support system, students may have access to a campus career center, for example, and you can direct them to these types of resources.

Synchronous Feedback is your Best Friend

Guiding MLIS students through the job search process is very time-consuming. Reviewing materials, practicing for interviews, and serving as references can quickly eat up your whole work week. That is why it is helpful to think of ways to reduce time spent on this aspect of mentorship. One of the best ways to save time is to provide synchronous feedback only for application materials (whether CVs, cover letters, job presentation slide decks, lesson plans, etc.). For our Fellowship, this typically looks like a 20-30 minute meeting where I meet with the Fellow to review their documents and to provide verbal feedback.

I have found that synchronous feedback has benefits for both mentors and graduate students. It takes significantly less time to read and comment on a cover letter in person or over Zoom as, compared to doing it asynchronously. Additionally, when providing live feedback, students get to ask you clarifying questions in real time. Our Fellows have also noted that synchronous feedback is more helpful because a mentor reading your cover letter mirrors a potential employer doing the same. Rather than receiving line by line edits, hearing someone’s gut reaction helps graduate students understand if a cover letter is written effectively and persuasively.

The Emotional and Invisible Labor of Mentorship

I want to conclude this post by recognizing the emotional labor that goes into mentoring MLIS graduate students. We all know that the job search process can be emotionally charged, especially in an increasingly competitive job market and an unstable world at large. Writing cover letters and preparing for interviews is a deeply personal and vulnerable process that can bring up questions of identity and various feelings. As mentors, we are not only helping students to navigate the job search, but also the emotional potholes that come along with it.

It is equally important to acknowledge that mentorship is often invisible labor. The guidance that library mentors provide to graduate students is invaluable but often overlooked or unseen as part of our professional portfolios. The lack of visibility contributes to the isolation of mentors from each other. Based on my work with a team of librarians to support our Fellows, I believe that mentorship is at its best when it is collaborative. We can become better mentors by learning from each other. I encourage everyone to share their ideas, advice, and resources for mentoring MLIS students within their networks and communities.

Lastly, I want to thank the librarians and LIS professionals who have mentored me over the course of my library science journey and education. I think mentorship is very much a pay-it-forward act of service, and I am very grateful to be able to be a mentor to current and future graduate students.

Let’s cultivate copyright confidence

Copyright competency is about more than knowing the rules. It’s about knowing what the rules are trying to achieve and how libraries contribute to those goals.

If you have a legally inclined librarian in your life, you may have heard them lament the state of copyright education in MLIS programs. If not, then allow me. Several studies have highlighted the widespread lack of sufficient copyright education across MLIS programs, both in North America and abroad (Cross & Edwards, 2011; Dryden, 2010; Fernández-Molina et al., 2022; Gathegi & Burke, 2008; Schmidt & English, 2015). These studies also point out that, even in the LIS programs that do offer some form of copyright-focused course, many are elective as opposed to a requirement for matriculation; few of the courses are “rigorous” or are regularly updated alongside the evolving copyright environment (Kawooya et al., 2019); and ultimately, “very few courses at the master’s level provide for the minimal requirements in terms of copyright literacy for professionals —whether to carry out their own tasks and functions, or else to aid co-workers or users as effectively as possible” (Fernández-Molina et al., 2022, p. 6). In a 2014 survey, only 49% of academic librarians felt prepared to provide copyright support to library patrons (Charbonneau & Priehs, 2014), and those librarians—along with library deans (Eye, 2013)—expressed a desire for additional copyright training. I’d guess the results would be similar in 2026. My MLIS program did offer a copyright-focused course and I still needed several copyright professional development courses to feel competent.

Copyright competency is about more than knowing and following (and often over-complying with) the rules. It’s about knowing why the rules exist—what goals the law is trying to accomplish so as to benefit society, and how the current legal framework is or is not helping society reach those goals. Libraries can locate their contributions to these larger societal goals and thereby understand why and how copyright law allows us to do what we do. And we can often do more than we might think (e.g. thank you, fair use).

On the other side of the coin, copyright law can also restrict libraries from being able to do what they should be able to do. Contractual override of library exceptions and fair use rights, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act’s restrictive amendments to library copyright exceptions (17 U.S. Code § 108 b(2) and c(2)), and the Second Circuit’s unfortunate decision in the Internet Archive case on controlled digital lending are just a few examples of a tightening belt on libraries and our mission of sharing information for the public good. Libraries (read: librarians) need to know how to make their own case. We contribute in unique ways to the societal goals copyright is trying to accomplish. Yet, in conversations with copyright experts, I’ve heard this sentiment shared several times: “If someone proposed the idea of libraries today, they’d be laughed out of the room.” I don’t think they’re wrong.

So, yes, we need to pay more attention to copyright in MLIS programs. We need ongoing professional development about copyright as it evolves. We need to feel more prepared to inform folks about how copyright affects their work (for example, authors’ propensity to sign away their journal article copyrights with abandon is the “original sin” of the serials crisis). Fortunately, there are very smart people and organizations working hard in this arena. I’m sharing a few of my favorite resources here, in hopes that they help someone take a step toward more copyright confidence:

Quick Reference Resources

  • All things from Authors Alliance: Super reliable advisors on all things copyright, specializing in issues affecting higher ed and in support of authors “who want to serve the public good by sharing their creations broadly.” Along with their public-facing news, analysis, and updates about copyright, they also work directly with academic libraries, if you know of an interested dean.
  • Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for OER: An explanation of how fair use allows authors to reference/include content/diagrams from other works in new noncommercial texts (even if those other works are all-rights-reserved). Generally helpful examples of how fair use can be applied to authorship
  • Fair Use Fundamentals from Fair Use Week: A tidy and LibGuide-friendly infographic on how fair use supports the fundamental purpose of copyright and makes possible lots of uses we rely on every day. Also, consider celebrating Fair Use Week in February!
  • Steps in the Analysis of a U.S. Copyright Case (Enriquez, 2013): Even though the risk of legal action and legal penalty is quite low for academic libraries, for those who want to understand all possible outcomes of their copyright-related actions, this document is a simple overview of court procedures for copyright infringement cases.

Professional Development

  • Creative Commons Certificate Curriculum: The ultimate authority on how CC licenses work. This certificate program is great, and in the spirit of open sharing, CC also makes their curriculum materials publicly available.
  • Open Copyright Education Advisory Network (OCEAN): OCEAN is carrying forth the mantel of regular copyright professional development for cultural heritage institutions. Not copyright 101, but if you have a baseline understanding, their events are great.

LibParlor Online Learning is live(!) & takeaways from launching a big project

This post serves two purposes – promotion of a new curriculum that launched this fall aimed at supporting LIS professionals in developing their research skills and a chance for me to reflect on some takeaways I had from launching a big (IMLS funded) project. 

In 2017, I helped start The Librarian Parlor, LibParlor for short. It started as a blog on WordPress where folks could share stories, tips, strategies, and lessons on doing research in LIS. As the blog grew, we heard from the community that they wanted more. As we thought about what that more could look like, the idea of an openly available curriculum arose. Long story short, we spent a lot of time in Google Docs putting together a proposal for an IMLS grant. We were fortunate to be awarded a Laura Bush 21st Century Grant in 2021. Over the last three years, we’ve collaborated with so many wonderful folks in the field to put together LibParlor Online Learning (LPOL). We launched the curriculum this fall and are working to get the word out!

What is LPOL? 

LPOL is a free, openly-available “living” curriculum for library workers who want to develop their research skills. The curriculum in its entirety is six courses, each with lessons, readings, and activities. LPOL starts with reflecting on who we are as researchers, moves into the LIS research process, our methodologies, planning for a project, the writing and editing, the publication and review process, and wraps it up with having you compile a final research plan. We envision that learners might complete the whole curriculum from start to finish, or pick up pieces of the curriculum, depending on what they need. 

Our curriculum is guided by the following learning outcomes:

  • Develop and articulate a personal understanding of their research identity and values in order to create short- and long-term research goals
  • Identify and navigate the institutional and professional systems that intersect with LIS research in their given context
  • Describe the LIS research process and articulate disciplinary norms in order to make informed decisions about their own research projects
  • Assess various LIS research methodologies in order to choose an appropriate approach for their own projects 
  • Apply project planning skills and strategies in order to develop a research proposal and timeline 
  • Critically evaluate the field of LIS research in order to advocate for change and promote an inclusive, supportive, and rigorous research community

One of the many things I love about this curriculum is how it was co-created. During the grant, we hosted an in-person and virtual forum to get ideas and shape the curriculum. We then recruited a group of incredible colleagues who took these big ideas and wrote the lessons, identified readings, and designed activities. Before we formally launched LPOL, we also had a group of pilot participants test the curriculum out and provided actionable feedback we could implement. What you see today is a culmination of teamwork and collaboration that we hope makes the curriculum meaningfully and useful to library workers. 

Okay, LPOL sounds cool/useful. How do I get started? 

It’s really easy to get started. We’ve distilled it down into three steps:

  1. Register for an account. While you don’t need an account to access the curriculum, we recommend creating one, as this allows you to track your progress and also helps us assess the curriculum’s impact and efficacy. 
  2. Download our LPOL Workbook. This workbook contains all of the activities throughout the curriculum. Once you download the workbook, you can use it however it’s most useful to you.
  3. Dive into the curriculum. Our curriculum home page has additional information on our courses and lessons and or you can explore our full curriculum to decide what you’ll do first!

Lessons Learned

As this IMLS grant wraps up at the end of the year, I’ve also been thinking a lot about what I’ve learned from this experience. Being a part of this grant has been my largest, long-term project I’ve worked on in my professional life. Here are some of my takeaways: 

  • Things don’t always go as planned so build in flex time and be okay with making revisions: When you’re building a timeline for the future, you truly don’t know what will happen. For us, we had to navigate a pandemic, support one another through job and life changes, and work with our collaborators to move things forward like hiring folks and paying people (ahh bureaucracy). Even though we thought we built a flexible timeline, we still made additional revisions. We got better as the grant went on with building in even more flex time and recognizing when we needed to extend something. In order to do our best work, we needed more time and that’s okay!
  • Co-creating takes time and is so worth it: LibParlor has always been about co-creation, but it was wonderful to see this co-creation play out in creating the curriculum. One of my favorite parts of the grant was helping to facilitate conversations about what should be put in the curriculum. We had all of these wonderful ideas and perspectives and that shaped what you see today in LPOL. I really feel like the curriculum pulls together so many themes and ideas from our community. And while we couldn’t use all the ideas (because then the curriculum would never end), we have some really good ideas for the future! Which leads nicely to my last takeaway…
  • Even when the grant ends, the work continues: Even though we wrote about the sustainability of the project in our IMLS application, it’s one thing to write about it and another thing to actually do it! As the grant winds down, we are talking a lot about what’s next. What edits to the curriculum will we make? How will we continue to promote it? How do we keep building a community from those who participate in LPOL? These are all important questions that we don’t have all the answers to. As we get ready to transition into life post grant, we know there’s still a lot of exciting work ahead.

In many ways, these takeaways have also benefited my day-to-day work life. Leading a teaching and learning department is a long-term project and so participating in LPOL has shaped how I approach this kind of work with my team.

Final thoughts

I’m grateful for the chance to be a part of this grant. I’m proud of the work we did and excited to see how others might use LPOL. I’d love to hear from you, our readers. What excites you about the curriculum? Do you see ways you might use LPOL? I’d love to hear from you in the comments!

Prepared? Reflecting on grad school after 3.5 months on the job

Lately, I’ve been thinking about how well my MS/LIS degree and its related experiences prepared me for my job now as a Research and Instructional Services Librarian. It’s important to note that I worked in my undergraduate library for three years while receiving my bachelors. I also worked in my hometown public library for a year before heading off to graduate school. I’d worked at a physical reference desk before, had worked with LibChat, and had a base knowledge of databases. I had more library experience than some, and therefore had a better idea of what classes I needed to be taking to become an academic librarian.   

I feel like a broken record saying this, but my graduate experience was quite different and chaotic at best; my first year, I was entirely online (unplanned), assistantship and all. Online classes weren’t necessarily a surprise, given my alma mater’s strong online MS/LIS program, but setting foot in the library I worked for exactly once during the 2020-2021 school year wasn’t something I was expecting. I did chat and email reference, team meetings, and taught workshops all from my tiny bedroom in Urbana, IL. I’d moved to Illinois specifically to have an in-person program, but alas – Covid ruined those plans. My supervisor and the other librarians I worked with did their best to train my cohort remotely, but as you can imagine, the physical reference desk is a whole other beast compared to a virtual one. Even when we went back in person in summer 2021, things felt constantly up in the air. Policies were changing left and right as folks tried to reconcile COVID-19 restrictions with being back in person. If anything, my “chaos cohort” of other graduate assistants were prepared to be adaptable! 

collection development

With that being said, one aspect of my degree that might seem controversial to some is that I actively chose not to take collection development, despite never having done that in any of the previously mentioned library jobs. This was based on some of my friends’ experiences in the class; it was useful, for sure, but there were other classes they’d wanted to take that they couldn’t as a result. I had the thought too that wherever I ended up, they would “do” collections differently. I’d have to learn new processes no matter what classes I took. Now that I’m here at Salisbury, I am responsible for collections in areas like Environmental Studies, Public Health, and Exercise Science, to name a few. I lean on my faculty for book recommendations, as well as Choice Reviews from ACRL and book reviews in journals. I am also part of our Leisure Reading committee, where our main responsibility is to develop our leisure collections for students, faculty and staff. Here, the collection development is a group effort. Personally, I don’t feel like I’ve missed out on too much; I’ve learned how to use GOBI on the job, and my university has a great faculty request system in place.  

instruction

A theme I have noticed in literature regarding the master’s degree is that many academic librarians feel they weren’t adequately prepared to take on instruction. It’s also been written about on ACRLog before. This is something I felt fairly confident about, as I took the class “Instructional Strategies and Techniques for Information Professionals” with Merinda Hensley. We created a lesson plan, struggled through writing learning outcomes (emphasis on the struggle), and wrote teaching philosophies. I also took “E-Learning” with Melissa Wong, which gave me language and strategies for teaching virtually. On top of all of this, I was teaching for the UIUC library via my graduate assistantship. So when setting up instruction sessions with my faculty at Salisbury, I felt confident. I’m always going to be nervous before teaching, but it’s never been because I have no idea what I’m doing.  

faculty communication

Where I feel shaky in regards to my job duties is in communication with faculty. Some of this is to be expected with a new librarian, but where I find myself unsure is how many emails to send, how to reach faculty that don’t already request library instruction… essentially, I am struggling in this aspect of “proving” myself and my job to other faculty at the university. I attended the CLAPS (Critical Librarianship & Pedagogy Symposium) two weeks ago, and Baharak Yousefi’s closing keynote has really stuck with me. Some of these tweets capture the essence of this powerful keynote, which had some focus on one-shot instruction:  

“No physicist, historian, or geographer on our campus teaches this way – going around begging for the right to teach in a one-off manner.” (tweeted by @lydia_zv)  

“We are deprofessionalized by being given work we can’t do well, and the very fact that we can’t do it well makes us reluctant to resist the condition of our de-professionalization” (tweeted by @RoxanneShirazi) 

I didn’t have the words for what I was feeling, but Yousefi has captured it perfectly. I was hired at Salisbury to perform a job, I have faculty status, and yet, it sometimes feels like I need to prove the merit of library instruction. I’ve got some great faculty who know the value of a librarian for their students, but even then, I’m in front of them maybe once a semester. If the timing of our session isn’t quite right, students won’t see the value of what I teach yet or won’t want to re-do their research based on what I’ve shown them. I imagine that confidence in faculty communication will come with time and effort; is this even something an MS/LIS could prepare a new librarian for? I’m inclined to say no. We can perhaps be warned about the phenomenon by professors and mentors, but it strikes me as something a librarian has to experience and address themselves at their institutions.  

These are just a few things I’ve been pondering since graduating. How did your MS/LIS prepare you for your library position? How did it not? Feel free to sound off below. This post by Sarah Crissinger on tips for graduate school might be of interest too.