A second aspect of the non-specificity of the standards is that as they are written, they allow schools to define the niche they want to fill and then be judged only or at least mainly against that vision. Those of us with and interest in technical services certainly often think so. If there were a LIS program at every second univeristy, it might be defensible to allow schools free reign to define their goals, but when library schools are few and poorly distributed geographically, and when people tend to go to the school closest to them, and then work nearby afterwards, this kind of curricular laissez faire does not serve the nation or the profession well. People practicing all the specialities are needed across the country, and distance education has not yet developed to the point that education for those specialties is as well distributed as the need. My second major issue is the narrow focus of the accreditation process.
Accreditation covers masters degree programs only.
But the field has many other educational needs, such as paraprofessional preparation, post-masters certifications, continuing education for practicing librarians, PhDs, and a professional doctorate. We were reminded at the outset of this congress, that the focus for this weekend is on the first professional degree, and indeed, that focus is in the charge of the steering committee. Other avenues to influence education are few, and not much used. Few members take advantage of the opportunity to attend the meetings of the Committee on Education, and those who have attended the Education Assembly in the past know how little actual impact those gatherings have on the education process. My recollection is that those decisions were largely made by the steering committee, and they were mainly explained during the open forums.