I first heard about the Academy of Certified Archivists (ACA) back around 2008 when I was working in the North Carolina Room (NCR) at the New Hanover County Public Library (NHCPL). I was completing work on my master's degree in history and applying for archivist jobs, but almost all of them wanted the same thing: an ALA-accredited MLS. It didn't matter how well I knew history or could conduct historical research or process archival collections--that ALA-accredited MLS was virtually mandatory.
However, some postings indicated that they would accept master's degrees "in a related" field with qualifying professional experience and ACA-certification. So, to become an archivist, it seemed there were two possibilities:
1) Go for the second master's degree in library science.
or
2) Take the ACA exam.
While the latter seemed helpful, it did not seem to weigh as heavily as the ALA-accredited MLS. Looking at the Handbook on the official website (www.certifiedarchivists.org), I could see that my understanding of both the history and scholarship of the field was lacking.
So finally, I decided to pursue the ALA-MSLIS.
And finally, after nearing completion on the ALA-MSLIS, I have (some) time to study and take the ACA exam.
Granted, I did not have as much time as others (guides suggest you need about at least 9 months to prepare, but a few years is nice too), and granted, I did not have a study group to work with, I do feel I had the following advantages:
1) Blogs/other online guides/resources at my disposal
2) By virtue of currently being in grad school and taking classes dealing with archival science, I was "studying"--even if I wasn't intentionally studying for the exam.
The only real con is that I could not devote all of my energies to the texts and I really could not fully anticipate what would be on the exam.
So what was my thought process? Well, I looked at the feedback from people who took the exam last year. Among the common gripes were that the questions were very tech-oriented and that they dealt with current readings and journals, vs. the established literature which everyone had used for preparation (because the handbook recommended said readings).
So, I based my preparation on their complaints--not really anticipating that, yes, maybe the test designers might, in turn, modify the exam--which they did.
So how did I do? I have no idea.
I felt good and bad about it. I know I got over 50% of the questions right, but I also feel that some of the questions were tricky, and I had to actually think hard for them. In such cases, it was not about taking information learned from the texts, but exercising judgment and ethics based on hypothetical scenarios. There were a few where training and literature as an archivist comes into conflict with training from other disciplines (in which I may have more experience), and I was torn on the answers. So 50% right, and 50% of the remaining 50% questions could go either way. I would say I scored a 72 with a +/- of 7.
"I KNOW this answer is right from prior experience working in museums and preservation practices, but that answer could be right according to archival practices..." So, just as there is professional conflict between historians, librarians, records managers, and archivists, so too was there conflict with my answers.
So, I don't know how I did. What I can say is that, yes, there is a pronounced emphasis on electronic records, digitization, and digital records, and the ACA is to be commended for taking such steps. The exam also included several questions tied to outreach and management of archives facilities (i.e. HR practices, training, funding, etc.). That was definitely my weak spot.
In any case, I will find out by the middle of September.
No comments:
Post a Comment