You are really a librarian for the 21st century!

I highly agree with you that library schools should integrate technology with the different library subjects. The later generations librarians are luckier ‘cuz they can enjoy this; but the earlier generations librarians should strive hard to be a computer savvy; be a project manager as there are many projects in the library; learn how to conduct user needs studies in order to deliver relevant information services to our users; digitize information sources if possible; and most of all, a librarian should also do information marketing to perk up users to use the library. We librarians have to learn to accept and embrace “Library 2.0″ or the automated library & library services.

Library systems will always be needed and library systems will always need people to run them. The sheer vastness of information available today means that trying to find the right media, information or data is seriously hard work. I work for a charity and my job is Librarian, I run a small postal lending library service of about 5000 books and media and this small service is used by approximately 700 members, who never would have had access to the material had we not found it and localised it.

The second part to my job as Parent Support Assistant entails researching and answering queries on behalf of our members, who don’t have the time to do it themselves. Their queries are unsual and lengthy and it is our job to find the right information which is also understandable and not academic. Again this service caters for approximately 7000 clients, each with differing queries. This proves beyond doubt that people will always be needed in a librarians post. The definition of the old reference card type librarian has changed, it has and will continue to evolve much like all jobs in the 21st century.

Meredith Farkas has highlighted the key areas that we librarians need to listen to if we wish to be of service to the population at large in the future. My library has changed so much in the last year and had I not evolved with the tech side of it, well it could well have been a problem in the future. In a world made up of search engines, you could be forgiven for thinking that the job of a librarian is dwindling and fast. But it really isn’t, search engines are great tools for searching but they are not great at providing you with a good solid resource as an end result. Big companies still implement knowledge management systems because they are are a great way of archiving all resources which each company has at its disposal but you still need a person to run, update and maintain these sytems. The role of the librarian is safe, we will continue to be needed for a while yet.

I agree with you immensely, but I’ll say it again: I learned alot of things in my Public Administration Masters that were as much or more relevant to my job than alot of what I learned in Library School.

That, of course, begs the question “why did I have to do the library science degree? Why didn’t I just take the MPA?” The answer right now is “because the ALA says I need the MLIS.” That message ought to set off alarm bells to anyone who is an educator in this field (and, actually, I think it does — otherwise programs would offer the dual degree option in the first place).

I think on-the-job is important, but I also think alot more can be done to prepare people for the job. Self-motivated or not, there is alot of stuff that librarians need awareness of, otherwise we will just do the same old things we’ve always done. In a Google world, I don’t think this is possible anymore.

This, again and however, isn’t unique to libraries; it characterises the workforce today. New employees in all industries – from waiting on tables onwards – are pulling their hair out in frustration at job ads that ask for 3 years’ experience and an improbable list of personal and work attributes for entry-level positions. The real concern is that these jobs get filled – often by highly experienced people who have been forced out of their previous positions and who will take anything to keep in employment.

No course, these days, seems to be adequate for employers to accept graduates. Employers are feeling the squeeze as they’re told to do things faster, cheaper, smaller, and for longer hours, and they pass that squeeze on to their hapless employees; who don’t get any further training because their employer can’t afford the time or money.

It’s a vicious circle, often only broken these days by the workers themselves saying “I’ve had enough!” and doing their own education, and hauling themselves to their next ideal level by main force and sleeplessness.

I hope that one day this cycle will be broken, but in the meantime I’m not so convinced that it’s the task of the educational institutions to try and break it, by trying to be all things to everything. That way meaninglessness lies …

I agree with you here. I am not sure of the value of an “html” or “php” course. Much better to understand the broader concepts about top-level programming and architecture.

My “database management” course was using Access to create some kind of database product. That meant we had to learn Access’s weird version of SQL and Visual Basic. Yuck!

I think an architecture course (with a couple of small exercises in some database product) would have been better. Just as nice would have been a course in evaluating and forming queries in an ILS. The hard part of the database was always the thinking about structure and design.

In my world, I never touch a database that has not already been designed by someone else (who is better at design than I am).