Former colleague Trevor Dawes has written a thorough piece about a name change proposed by the faculty of Rutgers' School of Communication, Information and Library Studies (SCILS). They have voted on and approved a new name, School of Communication and Information, and it is now awaiting approval from the Board of Governors.

Trevor received e-mail from a current SCILS faculty member after getting involved in a discussion of the name change on a listserv. I find part of that e-mail[1], specifically the rationale for the name change, absolutely puzzling:

We just have so many programs now — we can't possibly cover all of them in our school's name. School of Communication and Information is something of a compromise name, but it does encompass all our departments and programs in the school.

So in order to cover more programs, the name of the school ought to communicate less? Does dropping "Library Studies" somehow represent Journalism, Media Studies, and Informatics students more?

I fail to see how removing "Library Studies" makes the name of the school more meaningful. Why not follow this rationale to its logical conclusion, then, and shorten the name to School of Information? Or iSchool? Or how about "School?" Yes, that's it, "School!" Then all the departments and programs are equally well-represented. Huzzah, faculty!

I should be clear about my objection. I don't mind SCILS becoming an iSchool. In fact, I think my education there could have benefited from a more iSchoolish curriculum. But any problems with the school then were not related to the name, and I doubt they are now. What I object to is the oddball rationale for the name change, and the notion that in order to affect change and improve the school, well, clearly a change in name will do the trick! It's putting the cart before the horse, especially when the MLIS program lacks a core curriculum[2]. This is change in name only and that is perhaps a missed opportunity.

Notes

1. Taken out of context, true.
2. An opportunity for real change, though I will admit that there are good arguments against having one.

Nicole Engard has posted the results of her library school survey. She writes,

Why aren’t we all required to learn a bit of the basics from each area of the library? All schools should require an intro to reference/research, intro to cataloging, collection development, library automation, management, and systems class – that gives students a feel for each area of the library allowing them to decide where they want to go. Then after giving a grounding throw in some practical experience.

I agree with her in principle that a core curriculum is helpful in preparing library school students for librarianship. After all, what's wrong with subjecting a future cataloger (or reference librarian, or subject selector, or systems librarian…) to learn about other aspects of what we do? It puts their work in context within the library.

I can't speak authoritatively about other library schools, only having been to one, but I would surmise that the answer is simple: that the library degree tries to be too many things to too many people. We need clearer vision.

Case in point: the MLIS degree at Rutgers combines library studies, information science, and school media studies. If these disciplines are collapsed into the one degree, how is it possible to have a core curriculum? A good strategy is to have multiple tracks with set requirements, but students are, for the most part, left to mix and match their courses.

I can appreciate the freedom afforded to students by this. They can craft the degree that they want with very few restrictions. And that works for some students.

One is left to wonder, though, what a library degree from, say, Rutgers says about a candidates' qualifications. One conclusion to draw is that selection committees need to look beyond the degree towards specific courses and especially towards experience in the workplace, whether it be in a library or elsewhere.