I am writing this on the morning of my graduation from library school. This is my third degree, and I have attended two Universities in person, and two Universities online. All four have been Brick-and-mortar-Universities and each of the programs offer face-to-face instruction, but two of them are also offered online.
I have accumulated honorable GPAs at each. My first career was in academia as an IT professional; I supported the library for a significant part of my career. I think I know a little bit about academia and online education, and I obviously do not have an axe to grind with either of them.
This particular package of credentials is necessary for me today because I have to talk to you all about something terrible that was printed in the Library Journal this month. In his [blatantberry] column, John N. Berry III, editor-at-large of library Journal, said:
The profession needs to determine definitively whether totally online programs are qualitatively different from face-to-face on-site programs or those that are a blend of both. We need more study of the real educational limitations of each method of delivery. Programs like Drexel's and SJSU's, which require no face-to-face contact with fellow students or faculty nor any visits to a physical library or campus, obviously vary from the many traditional LIS programs. We should know whether the resulting credential (degree) is equally “good” from both experiences or better from one than from the other, and what, if any, are the differencesHe is casting doubt on our credentials. He goes on to say:
I am frequently told that online teaching is more work for the faculty, requires more “output” from the students, and is, thus, more “rigorous.” I'm not convinced that “output” has the richness of classroom interaction.
While casting doubt on the quality of online education, he promotes the traditional University education because he feels it has some special quality he calls "richness." Judging from the one-sided comments I'd say it is very clear where he stands. He wishes to protect the "brick-and-mortar" University even while it is engaging in double-digit tuition hikes all over the country.
Sounds like snobbery to me. I am not buying the emporer's new "richness." I suggest that you reject it too.
All four of the Universities I attended are accredited. Accreditation is the first degree of certainty that your education is recognized. I have observed accreditation inspections in my library IT days and I can tell you that accreditation is serious and thorough.
However, that is not enough when you wish to enter the profession. My MSLS must be accredited by the American Library Association, too. The degree has become almost synonomous with the accreditation. Libraries expect the accreditation--without it the degree is useless. Is the ALA accreditation not thorough and meaningful? Oh. It doesn't have a richness component; there is no way for it to say that online degrees are intrinsically less "rich."
Yet Mr. Berry seems to feel that it is not enough for my University and my program to meet all the accreditation requirements. He now wants to add another level of credit so that he can try to reorder things to the benefit of the Brick-and-mortar school. So far it is called "richness" but he will dress it up in fine-sounding words and perhaps use it as a tool to cast aspersions on the qualifications of librarians with an MSLS from an online program if he is allowed to have his way.
After my career in academia I knew that the academic world would frown upon a school that had no brick and mortar presence. When you are in the business of granting degrees, you must uphold the importance of your product. It is plain to see that academic snoberry is a matter of survival for the entrenched physical University. Rising costs and dwindling funding are working to diminish the value proposition that the traditional University education offers. Upstart online programs are effectively competing with each other and the Brick-and-mortar University, and offering a better value in many cases. Of course the old school will wish to differentiate itself! How about improving the value proposition in real ways? No one is interested in your emporer's new "richness," Mr. Berry.
I'm concerned about the many people who hold these degrees and the many more that are in the process of earning them. Apparently Mr. Berry couldn't care less. We are just minions to be pigeon-holed and diminished at will for his own reasons, without respect to our efforts, achievments, and capabilities.
Enough librarians who have schooled in brick-and-mortar Universities are all too vulnerable to be begging comparison with online graduates. I have met my share of both and I know full well that formidable intellects can be found in either environment. I also know from experience that there are enough "old school" librarians that belie Mr. Berry's argument that in-residence training provides a better education. Stop trying to make the University into some magical place that bestows "richness." I know that what we derive from our educational opportunities--and that's all they are--stems from what we bring to the endeavor in terms of capability, preparation, and effort. An Ivy-covered wall has nothing to do with that.
It is apparent that there is a disconnect between the majority of those practicing in libraries today, and those that are in large venues. Politics and money make for strange developments. Apparently Library Journal is catering to those monied interests; it certainly isn't catering to me or my neighborhood library. If a librarian with a Master's degree from an online program is diminished, what does he say about public librarians without a Master's degree at all?
If the editor-at-large for Library Journal can so freely diminish me and others like me, then I have to consider the value of the magazine that deems that credible and chooses to print it. In fact it isn't much of a magazine and I can find myriad better sources of information. As a result, I see no compelling reason to pay for this kind of foolishness. I am terminating my subscription; I know it's a small thing, but it is something. I'd recommend the same to every online library student and faculty member in the country.
If the editor-at-large for Library Journal can so freely diminish me and others like me, then I have to consider the value of the magazine that deems that credible and chooses to print it. In fact it isn't much of a magazine and I can find myriad better sources of information. As a result, I see no compelling reason to pay for this kind of foolishness. I am terminating my subscription; I know it's a small thing, but it is something. I'd recommend the same to every online library student and faculty member in the country.
My commencement has ended, I've watched it stream across the Internet as I pondered this issue. I jotted down something that our commencement speaker said, so Mr. Todhunter, wherever you are, your comments have already lived longer than most commencement speeches; they're being quoted:
The way to be happy is to like yourself.
The way to like yourself is to only do things that you are proud of.
Neil Todhunter
I wonder if Mr. Berry is happy now.
~dd
0 comments