I feel compelled to add a further note, without lengthening my previous post, but they do complement each other.
Firstly, I still think that professional education is important.
In particular, technical knowledge, such as cataloguing and collection maintenance is important, as is the delivery of reference services.
That said, I don't believe that a degree in library science is mandatory in order to complete these tasks. The fact that I, a mere Arts graduate, was able to learn the principles of all of these through a textbook and readings, should be enough of an indication that it's hardly rocket science.
Some professionals exhibit shock when they hear that X Library Service is letting *gasp* library technicians, or even *shock* *horror* library officers conduct reference queries. But really, since when was the capacity for interpersonal comprehension and advice something that required a university degree? It comes down to training and people skills. Not a piece of paper.
I've certainly worked in libraries where staff haven't had that piece of paper, and they're definitely smarter than me. They should be allowed to demonstrate their skills, so that we can provide the best service possible to our library users.
(On a final note, I understand that at the end of the day, there are the regular duties and workflow to worry about. I totally accept this as a legitimate reason to keep the roles separate. After all, we're not paying librarians $33/hr to be checking books in and out. However, to claim academic achievement as a reason to keep the reference and circulation duties separate is complete bollocks, and just serves to create elitist division within the workplace. Your circ staff have brains too, or you wouldn't have hired them. Right?)
