We who have been looking at postings for librarian jobs for a long time have long been aware of how laughably optimistic some employers are of the kinds of applicants they're going to find. More than a decade's worth of experience, a second Master's degree (in a specific particular field, no less), and willing to work 50-60 hours a weeks for just under 30,000 dollars. That's a worst case scenario, of course, but I've actually seen postings that hit three out of four of those. Clearly, some people would do well to lower their expectations. Yes, this is an employer's market and you've got your pick of the litter right now, but sometimes the future Westminster winner you're hoping for just isn't going to be out there.
Now, we job hunters often have a snicker over those job posts, typically before sighing heavily, taking another belt of our favorite drink (hemlock), and throwing ourselves off the roof. And yet, I rarely hear laughter, complaints, or head scratching about employers on the opposite side of the fence, and it's strange to me because I see them constantly. I mean those employers who pretend to have no standards whatsoever, even though they clearly need someone with a pretty substantial wealth of experience.
These jobs are extremely easy to identify. Any time you see a job described simply as "Librarian," you've just found one. What kind of librarian? Reference? Instruction? Collection development? Cataloging? Would this be a supervisory position, perhaps? Would I be in charge of the website, or be the liaison to the instructors? The answer is all of the above. "Librarian" more or less means "you're gonna be the only one here. do it all." Now that's the kind of job I wouldn't expect to get without 5 years or more of progressively greater responsibility in the library world, having moved my way up to a management position at the very least. Maybe I wouldn't expect to need a second Master's in Oriental Medicine or whatever, but obviously I should be ready to tackle a huge range of tasks with little to no direction.
I see these jobs all the time. "Librarian." "Librarian." "Librarian." That vague title that simply means "every kind of librarian you can think of, you're running the show, champ." And yet every single one of those jobs I see asks for the exact same qualifications: "An ALA accredited Master's degree in Library Science." That's it. As if someone who just walked out of library school is perfectly capable of captaining the ship themselves.
What I'd like to know is, are they honestly considering people with no experience? Is what they list as their qualifications really all that matters to them? Or are they doing a complete 180 from the laughably optimistic employers above, so afraid of raising their standards too high that they drop all standards altogether for the initial job posting, and simply weed out the inexperienced ones once they've collected the resumes? In short, just what the fucking fuck is up with these jobs? I don't suppose anyone in the know can shed some light on this for us long-suffering job hunters?
And if these jobs secretly do have standards, could we maybe see more middle ground between the "I expect a librarian who can ride in on a unicorn, holding the Holy Grail" employers and the "we need someone who can do everything, but fuck it, we're too afraid to ask for more than a degree" employers? Please? I understand your perspective as someone who is concerned about raising the bar too high, but maybe you could understand my perspective as someone who is a little burned out after spending over five years applying for job after job after job afterjobafterjobafterjob, and maybe agree not to waste my time if I don't have the experience you're secretly looking for. Just an idea, throwing it out there.
