the greying of the profession does not equal more jobs for new grads

Rachel Singer Gordon has written an excellent article for Library Journal about the “greying of the profession” hype we’ve all been hearing and how it doesn’t necessariy turn into tons of jobs for younger librarians.

“How old will you be in 2019? Will you be watching for the “next next wave” of new librarians entering the profession then? Sitting around waiting is not only macabre, it’s against the very spirit of librarianship, which recognizes the importance of the varied experiences and contributions of every member of the profession and of every piece of knowledge each of us possesses.” [lisnews]

Google Schmoogle, what’s the REAL answer?

The New York Times — and my favorite library professor Joe Janes — tries valliantly to convince people that librarians still serve a purpose. This article interests me for a few reasons. Librarians still beat out Google in terms of being able to provide definitive, properly sourced, information. I also like Janes’s description of librarians as being people who have a “plan B” when Google fails them. However I wonder if most of our patrons value this level of detail? If you need the name of the party Perot started do you really need to look through more than one page of Google results, as the Times somewhat snobbily implies most people don’t? How many times do our patrons really just want to know what most people think the answer is, which is Google’s strength, and not the One True Answer, which is ours. [thanks all]