@Koko (much easier)
The decision makers would be dependent on what scale (and what country). If you wanted to change cultural employment standards, then the government could do that. In the UK, probably either Department of Culture, Media and Sport or Work and Pension or maybe even Business, Innovation and Skills, or all three. Maybe even local authorities (still a UK exmaple) could be partners to establish a change. Individual museums would need to convince whoever/whatever the head manager and possibly the cheif governence/trustees.

Of course, this “political” method would need a particular edge, probably that of “providing opportunity to young people as part of economic development”, despite the age of museum graduates. That’s politics.

Otherwise, you’re dealing with the politics of the membership organisations to spark a change. But this normally comes after too much debate and too many compremises to be effectual.

There’s something that’s puzzling, and that’s the idea of their not being enough jobs. So we need to create more jobs. But there’s no funding. So where was the funding for all these massive extensions? Why was there an increase in buildings?
So we either need more museums or need more things for museums to do. Or, we need to do something about this model of fund-and-spend. But I’m not an much of an economist.

We are dealing with hammers here, not scalpels.

I only have half an idea to what a museum start-up is, and it may be something I want to take further at some point.

The other detrimental effect is that it pisses people off. Volunteering, as to develop a career, needs to progress when it’s too often a cul-de-sac. But your 100% right on it creating a skewed workforce.

@PaoloV
“Rather than focusing on routes in at the outset, perhaps it would be useful to look at what museums require and what they have available.”
Yeah, alright, that’s very wise. I’ll keep that in mind when I think of some more.

Heh, nonsense like what? That would make a great book. “The Book of Museum Lies”.

The more I hearaabout funding, the more I want to say “The rest of the world doesn’t need funding!”, but that’s a post for another time.

Master and Volunteer, a film with Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany.

Last night I found myself wondering about the decision makers – right now, not in 5 or 10 years – and who they are. Who can actually effect future outcomes. (I mean, it is fine for us all to have this conversation but if it doesn’t make an impact beyond blog walls…it is just a good discussion. If a tree falls in the forest and all that.) What do you think? I have my own version of an answer, but would be interested what you think. That’s a broad question, I know. It may even be getting back to the “whose to blame” cycle, which isn’t what I mean.

First of all, how many openings are there, how many people in the discipline and how many people wanting to break into the sector? There seem to be far more people attempting to work in museums than there are jobs available (in my experience there are about 100-150 applicants for an entry-level position).

At present, many applicants hold a Masters in Museum Studies, which amounts to little – they lack any experience of practical museum work. Theory and academic concepts of best practice are drummed into graduates, but this prescriptive teaching methodology seems to be more structured towards providing the Universities with a cheap to run but highly lucrative course than to providing the graduates with a realistic taste of museum experience.

Feedback I have heard from museum professionals who have undertaken some of the Masters courses after they have been in the sector for a few years has invariably been negative and in many instances they have been shocked at the nonsense that they have been told.

Apprenticeships or sponsored secondments would provide a more useful entry point for museum hopefuls than the cynical fees-driven Masters system that is currently en vogue, but of course this would require funding. At the moment the museum sector is losing out on people who can offer valuable skills, because selection of those who enter the sector is dependent on determination, personal wealth, or willingness to make sacrifices – rather than pure ability.

That being said, there are so many people coming through the system it seems likely that those with ability may eventually make it through to a paid position after all, since few will get jobs without spending time as a volunteer anyway – it is that time volunteering that generally provides institutions with an indicator of ability. In short, it’s not a case of Masters or volunteering, in many instances it’s Masters and volunteering.

Re: “The Real Problem: Degree>Volunteering>Entry-Level seems to be the *only* route into museums. We need more Routes. Ideas? I’m thinking Degree>Museum Start-Up.”

I’d love to hear more about what you mean by Museum Start-Up. It sounds like a tantalizing concept.