This is a good point! Thanks for clarifying. Just to let you know – there were several people from different schools who made comments about reference/research.

Currently at my school (U of Oklahoma), a research class — focused on how research is conducted in the social sciences, how to do a lit review and figure out your methodology, etc. — is required.

However, whether or not a reference class is required depends on your definition. “Information Users In the Knowledge Society” (the theories behind reference) is required, but “Information Sources and Services” (how to do a reference interview and where to find information) is not.

While there were only six respondents from OU, I wonder how this sort of confusion of terminology might have affected other answers.

In my opinion, you do not need previous library experience to be a great Librarian right out of grad school. Yes, you have your “getting to know the job” period as you do with any other new job; however, if you listen and apply yourself, you will find that you can fit in nicely. I have received two performance reviews thus far, and both have been excellent.

I took 3 courses a term for 4 terms. That was 3 fewer classes than were required due to the fact that I got credit for 5+ years of library related work. That means there are 15 classes needed to graduate from Drexel. All I’m suggesting is 6 of those be required. That leaves you with 9 electives to narrow in on your field of interest.

Also, on the theory of ending up with generalists – I don’t agree. I think you end up with well rounded individuals who respect their colleagues. Right now you have catalogers thinking that reference librarians don’t work and reference librarians thinking that any idiot can catalog (yes I’ve heard people say these things). If you provide students with a grounding in all areas of the library you educate them on what their colleagues are doing and you help them choose which area of the library is best suited to them.

One thing that really jumped out at me was this comment from someone who graduated in the 70s, in the ‘did library school prepare you for the real world’ category:

“Yes, but at that time our program was based on practical application, the university lost their accreditation because they were not teaching enough theory. Theory is nice, but give me people with some practical skills vs. meeting new librarians who cannot explain the relationship of AACR2 to a MARC record.”

That theory vs practice thing will probably never go away.

The fear seems to be that if there is too much practice, then it becomes a vocational program rather than a high-minded academic program, and then you really don’t need a masters degree, and then everyone loses what very little respect they already have and the salaries fall even lower than they already are. But higher-paying professions like accounting and law and medicine require much more practice vs theory than we do, so that doesn’t really seem like a valid argument.

And I think you’ve keyed on a major issue with the incredible range of required coursework out there and how it sort of invalidates the idea of a single, accreditable degree.

Having so many requirements also churns out thousands of generalists. Generalists are the last thing this profession needs.