Would you be a librarian for $120k/year?

[TheWart]

Originally posted by: binister
The reason for the post was because a friend of mine and I disagreed about how much a librarian in the Library of Congress made annually. I said it was easily over $100k, especially at the higher levels.

He claimed it was under $100k because they were government employees and subject to the same ol' GS tiers as everyone else.

I was right.

Supervisory Librarian (Vacancy #: 070287)
GS-1410-14 ? Library Services (Collections & Services, Humanities and Social Sciences Division, Local History and Genealogy Reading Section) ? $93,822.00 - $121,967.00
Opening Date: Oct 10, 2007
Closing Date: Oct 31, 2007

The librarians I know are very intelligent and would be excellent contestants on Jeopardy.

I don't think I would take the job though. I know I wouldn't be very good at it because I have a horrible memory although I do like to read. I think I will stick to IT...

Now the "Digital Projects Specialist" position listed on that page would be cool but doesn't seem like it has much potential for growth.

Well, he was right on at least one point. The salary is on the GS pay system, and in fact, the position you listed has the GS level right on it! It is a lvl 14, which ranges from ~90k to ~120k depending on the location. So yes, librarians at the Library of Congress are on the GS. And 14 is pretty high, seeing as the scale only goes to GS15 (within each GS level, there are 10 "steps," explaining the wide range a GS14 might receive.)

 

[Vidda]

I've worked in a community college library for a summer. It would have to be no less than $120k, and that's final.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
My fiance is getting her masters in library science. A good librarian can easily top six figures in our area. Plenty of job opportunities, too, and the population of existing librarians is aging and retiring, so the market will only get better for her. The best part is that librarian basically do NOTHING. All the major work is done by clerks and pages, who get paid a lot less. The librarians mostly sit around and go on the internet all day.

It's not the first job that comes to mind when you think of high pay, but there you go.

Speaking of librarians, I have always have to laugh when they get all excited and fired up about "Boolean" searches. It's like the boolean search is the only thing any of them ever learned about a computer, and they can't accept that it's mostly obsolete and google doesn't even recognize the qualifiers.

You are sadly delusional. Please, let me know what area of California offers six figures for an entry level Librarian position.


And Boolean searches ARE extremely useful, depending on where you are searching. OPACs are designed in such a way that boolean searches are the absolute best way to search for data.

 

[Regs]

And lick the toilet bowls clean. For sure.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
ok, let's clear up a few misconceptions here:

1) You will NOT find many librarians making more than $90k/year (regardless of cost of living) unless they are a library director (in charge of the library/library system).

1a) The AVERAGE salary of a librarian is 44k/year. Remember that is WITH at least one Masters. So yeah, it sucks.

2) You must have at least one Masters in Library and Information Science (a subject-specific masters is also common).

3) Librarians do not just check out books...in fact, very few do. They are more involved in designing education programs, developing and managing the collections of he library, staffing the virtual or physical reference desk, etc. The staff that checks books in and out (well, in most libraries) are NOT librarians. These days it is usually only the reference, children, and some of the back office staff.


If anyone has any specific questions about it, let me know.

keep in mind that the rest of the nation does not exist in the same sub-economy as Wisconsin. librarians get paid more than that in other regions, especially in major metro areas where there are tens of millions of people and countless libraries that need staff.

I was quoting BLS figures there.

Salaries of librarians vary according to the individual?s qualifications and the type, size, and location of the library. Librarians with primarily administrative duties often have greater earnings. Median annual earnings of librarians in May 2004 were $45,900. The middle 50 percent earned between $36,980 and $56,960. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $28,930, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $70,200. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of librarians in May 2004 were as follows:


Colleges, universities, and professional schools $47,830
Elementary and secondary schools 47,580
Local government 42,500
Other information services 40,000

The average annual salary for all librarians in the Federal Government in nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managerial positions was $74,630 in 2005.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
ok, let's clear up a few misconceptions here:

1) You will NOT find many librarians making more than $90k/year (regardless of cost of living) unless they are a library director (in charge of the library/library system).

1a) The AVERAGE salary of a librarian is 44k/year. Remember that is WITH at least one Masters. So yeah, it sucks.

2) You must have at least one Masters in Library and Information Science (a subject-specific masters is also common).

3) Librarians do not just check out books...in fact, very few do. They are more involved in designing education programs, developing and managing the collections of he library, staffing the virtual or physical reference desk, etc. The staff that checks books in and out (well, in most libraries) are NOT librarians. These days it is usually only the reference, children, and some of the back office staff.


If anyone has any specific questions about it, let me know.

No one asked about reality. Your first 2 points are not valid in this case.

I was pointing out a few of the misconceptions evident in this thread, therefore it IS relevant in this case.

 

[SludgeFactory]

I'd do it for $120k, although I'm not sure I'd want to be director of a library system.

It doesn't seem to be a profession that gets a lot of respect from the ignorant masses, I guess a lot of people's only experience is with their high school librarian kicking back and counting the days until retirement. A good librarian, especially in specialized libraries like engineering or medical schools, can be incredibly helpful when you've got research to do.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
I'd do it for $120k, although I'm not sure I'd want to be director of a library system.

It doesn't seem to be a profession that gets a lot of respect from the ignorant masses, I guess a lot of people's only experience is with their high school librarian kicking back and counting the days until retirement. A good librarian, especially in specialized libraries like engineering or medical schools, can be incredibly helpful when you've got research to do.

Agreed. They know what books can help you research, time periods, authors, news papers, historical events, ....

I'd imagine most of them making over 50k a year are literature aces.

 

[oiprocs]

Uhh, is there proof of a library job that pays $120K?

If so, yes I would, but probably later in life.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Absolutely not. I'd be bored out of my mind.

Same here. Books are great, but I wouldn't want to read all day.

 

[mugs]

Hell yeah I would.

One of my coworkers (software engineer) just recently quit/retired to become a librarian.

 

[LS20]

i used to shelve books. didnt make anywhere near 120k. i was quite happy when raised from 8.00/hr to 8.25/hr after a few months! woot!