ALA Council is having a debate online about U.S.News & World Report’s outdated library school rankings, which are based on a survey circulated to library schools in 1998 (wasn’t Netscape still king?). The academics say they “scorn” these rankings. (I thought scorn was an emotion reserved for the French.) The public library types, me included, point out that people in the real world use these rankings whether we like it or not.
I’m also not opposed to the idea that news services produce these rankings. It’s educational to see ourselves from the outside. Part of this education is seeing just how low we rate on their update cycle; health disciplines, for example, were updated in the fall of 2004. I wonder if it means U.S. News thinks library science is stodgy and backwards, a profession typified by rubber stamps and comfortable shoes. We can’t get angry if we’re perceived as backwards; all we can do is work to change the perception.
The easy solution is for someone at ALA to get on the horn with the reporters who produce the school rankings and encourage them to update this information, ask the ALA flacks to send a box of SWAG, and follow up with a note to ALISE alerting library schools that the survey is imminent (only 60% of library schools participated in 1998).
Instead, we have online debate, with a resolution pending. I’m hoping the silence from the ALA muckety-mucks mean they are busy gathering SWAG and free conference passes. Frankly, I used magazine rankings, among other measurements, when I was selecting a library school. It doesn’t matter if that was the best approach or not; it’s what I had at my disposal at the time.
I was hoping that the magazine’s media FAQ for the rankings would lead us to some information about how the report is produced, but instead I saw largely self-serving “questions” such as how to spell U.S.News & World Report (no space between the period and the N, I’m sorry to say). However, the page does say the “media” can contact Richard Folkers (rfolkers@usnews.com) for a “broadcast interview.”
As a member of the BBM (Biblioblogosphere Media), I invite Richard to comment on this blog entry. What say, Richard? How often do you update your information? Seven years is a long time–in dog/Internet years, your data is almost fifty years old.
Posted on this day, other years:
- The divides within IT - 2007
- Reader's Advisory: Says Who? - 2004
Speaking of ALA, I know you have posted in the past about attendance at ALA council sessions. I found a short mention of the Council meetings on page 17 of the Preliminary Program Supplement to American Libraries. Didn’t tell me enough to know what I might want to attend. The Membership Meetings? What are those? The Event Planner won’t be available until May, according to the ALA web site (’nuff said) today. So Karen, which Council meetings should I consider attending? After all, I did vote this year.
Talk about God’s ear! Though I shudder to think that ALA just has someone reading comments on FRL, the event planner did just go live. I thank whatever gods and/or goddesses were involved.