Skip to main content

It's a Charter, or nothing, apparently

A friend of mine* recently saw a advert for an interesting library post. She's always open to trying new things, and she wondered if it was worth her applying...she ticked a lot of the boxes for the skills that they wanted, and was willing to learn whatever new skills were were needed for the role - she's done it before.

But then she saw the fateful words..."Chartership essential".

Now, she's worked in various libraries, including special libraries, and Charterships are not particularly recognised or often supported in these sectors, so it's not something she currently holds. But she is a professional, qualified librarian with a wide range of experience, an involvement and interest in the wider profession, and an enthusiasm and willingness to learn, and gain Chartership if a role requires it.
  
So she decided to phone up and enquire if they were flexible on the Chartership aspect, before possibly wasting her time filling in an application. 
Apparently, if she doesn't have a Chartership, they wouldn't even look at her application! It didn't matter what her other skills or qualification were - it was a Charter, or nothing.
So, what happens if no-one with a charter applies, she enquired?
If they didn't receive an application from a Chartered candidate, they would just readvertise until they found one.

Now to me, this is a very odd, and bizarrely shortsighted approach to recruitment.

I can understand why those recruiting for certain senior positions would like to be able to say the candidate would have to be committed to high levels of professionalism in both themselves and their staff, and that the Charter is a mark of this.
But, if your personal situation means you haven't have the chance to Charter, is it fair to exclude those applicants on the basis of a qualification that is entirely optional within the profession?

What if you were Chartered, had a career break (leaving CILIP and also therefore losing your Charter), then came back to work...seems like you wouldn't get a look in for this job.
If you want to move from a sector where Charterships aren't valued into a new sector, you wouldn't even be looked at twice in this case. That's not doing much for mobility between areas is it?
And what if your Charter was gained 20 years ago, and you've done nothing since, such as Revalidate. Is the person with an old Charter really better that the person without, but with the willingness to learn and gain one? 

Is this a case of the requirement for an applicant to hold a Chartership (no matter what) blinding management to the skills of those without a Charter, or is it just some very odd people approaching recruitment very strangely?

* - Not a convoluted way of saying it was me, and trying to pretend it wasn't, honestly. This really did happen to a friend of mine. And it's true, I do actually have friends!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Despite chartership (and indeed professional qualifications) having no value here I continue to be a CILIP member partly to keep my chartered status. I believe that unless chartership is an essential qualification for professional posts situations such as Dumpling describes will continue to happen.

In my opinion the best approach in Dunpling's friend's situation would have been to consider her application on the grounds that if she were to be employed she would have to become chartered.

Popular posts from this blog

Careering along

When I look around at the activities of information professional groups, it seems that there’s a disparity. There’s quite often a lot of support and funding available for those who’re just starting out in the profession, but a desert of nothingness for those of us who’re “just getting on with it”. If you’re a new professional, you have lots of groups to support you as you progress in your early career, various prize funds available for essay and report writing, access to bursaries for conference attendance, eligibility for awards for being new and enthusiastic. But what do you get when you’re past that bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed first 5 years (5 years seems to be the approximate cut-off point for becoming “established” and no longer new). What happens when you’ve already received a bursary from an organisation earlier in your career and so wouldn’t be eligible for one now, meaning you’re not able to attend events or training? When you’re heavily involved in a project but not at

What if you don't get back what you put in?

I am, as you may know, a member of CILIP, the professional body for information professionals. There are two main reasons I'm a member. I am a Chartered librarian, and I take my commitment to maintaining this visible badge of my professionalism seriously. I have revalidated my Chartership within the previous assessment system, and I have submitted my Revalidation within the new system. To continue being a Chartered librarian, I must be a member of CILIP (although currently the commitment to continue to revalidate my Chartership is voluntary, and has been so for the length of my membership since approximately 2001). So I continue to be a member. I am a registered CILIP Mentor, and I help to guide those information professionals who are keen to be professionally qualified through the Chartership/professional qualifications process. I could not abandon midway through that process the people who are looking to me for guidance in their professional development. So I continue to be

Losing the professionalism

So, recently, CILIP apparently sent out an email regarding a consultation on a change of brand image, and name. I say apparently, as despite being a member, I never got this email. When I went to the website to log in and check why it wasn't sent to me, it didn't let me log in. I tried a password reset, and that email came through, so it *can* send emails to me...but the password it sent won't let me log in. I’m losing the will to keep trying. Overall, this is kind of symptomatic of how I feel about CILIP, and how useless its IT systems are.... Anyway, the consultation is on changing CILIP’s currently, clunky and meaningless name (picked as the best of a previous bad lot, as David McMenemy showed with this link to the 2000 consultation results ) to something more meaningful and relevant is open. If you want to take part, it’s here . I was a good girl, and pootled over yesterday to take part, and after filling in all the bumph, I got to view the glorious options. Oh. My.