College and Research Libraries


By R O B E R T T . G R A Z I E R 

Classification and Pay Plan 
for University Libraries 

Mr. Grazier is circulation librarian of 

Pennsylvania State College Library, State 

College. 

IN PRESENTING an informal paper to a local library staff association on library 
personnel the writer devoted one part of 

it to the recently published Classification 

and Pay Plans for Libraries in Institutions 

of Higher Education—University Librar-

ies.1 A sketchy comparison was drawn 

between the classification and pay plan 

and the personnel organization of the 

Pennsylvania State College Library. 

Skeletal as the comparison was, the several 

disparities revealed between theory and 

practice were rather startling, startling 

enough perhaps to prove of some interest 

to other library staffs. 

T h e first step in making the comparison 

was to determine the service load of the 

Pennsylvania State College Library. T h e 

pay plans wisely abandoned the former 

concept of the service load as being based 

on total enrolment and developed a method 

of computing the service load in terms of 

service units which are based on varying 

numbers of underclass and upperclass stu-

dents, honors students, graduate students, 

and faculty members. T h e weights used 

1 Subcommittee on B u d g e t s , Compensation, and 
S c h e m e s of S e r v i c e f o r L i b r a r i e s C o n n e c t e d with 
U n i v e r s i t i e s , Colleges, and T e a c h e r - T r a i n i n g Insti-
tutions of the A . L . A . B o a r d on Salaries, S t a f f , and 
T e n u r e . Classification and Pay Plans for Libraries 
in Institutions of Higher Education. Volume 3, 
Universities. Chicago, A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Associa-
tion, 1943. 

were: undergraduates I, upperclass (jun-

iors and seniors) 2, honors students 3, grad-

uate students 4, and faculty 5. T h e total 

service unit is obtained by adding the 

number of units in each category. T h e 

service load of the Pennsylvania State Col-

lege Library approximated 13,500 units, 

which put it, according to the classification 

and pay plan, into class six, which is uni-

versity libraries having 10,000—14,999 

service units. 

T h e class of the library established, the 

next step was to compare the total staff 

organization, including professional and 

clerical help of our library, with the stand-

ard set up by the schedule. Minimum 

standards for a class six university library 

called for twenty-nine professional librar-

ians in addition to the chief librarian. 

Actually there are twenty-five profession-

als in addition to our chief librarian. T h e 

clerical service should result in not more 

than 60 per cent or less than 40 per cent 

of the total staff hours being of clerical 

or student service. Penn State's clerical 

service was 54 per cent of total staff time, 

a figure which came within the set limit. 

O n l y four departments were selected to 

carry on the comparison of the theory with 

the practice: the catalog, reference, order, 

and circulation departments. T h e y were 

chosen primarily because they lent them-

selves to such a comparison more readily 

than other phases of Pennsylvania State 

College Library organization. A n d even 

v 176 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



the comparisons of these four departments 

were limited to only the most general 

features of the classification and pay plans. 

A s the compilers constantly reiterate, a 

thorough job analysis of each position is 

necessary before any accurate evaluation 

can be made. Since the entire comparison 

was only part of a general talk on the 

question of personnel related to the Penn-

sylvania State College Library, only the 

most incomplete and general analyses de-

scribed here were undertaken. T w o 

factors, however, made a few comparisons 

valid, despite the lack of a job analysis. 

First, the class of any individual library 

can be determined by computing its service 

load, and each class has certain minimum 

standards which should be met by all li-

braries falling within that particular class. 

Secondly, the class of any department is 

automatically determined by the number 

of employees in the department. Accord-

ing to the classification scheme there are 

five classes of departments ranging from 

A to E, A being the smallest and E the 

largest. Standards of education, expe-

rience, personal qualifications, and a salary 

schedule are set up for each position within 

each class of department. T h u s , as has 

been stated, the numerical size of a de-

partment determines its class and to a 

certain limited extent the standards of 

each position within that particular de-

partment. 

Procedure for Comparison 

T h e procedure for comparing standards 

is the same for each department. A brief 

description of the general process involved 

in evaluating the standards of our catalog 

department will explain the process fol-

lowed for the other departments. 

According to the classification and pay 

plan our catalog department is a class D 

catalog department. A class D catalog de-

partment has a staff of 1 1 - 1 4 full-time 

members including clerical help plus the 

chief of the department. There are five 

classes of catalog departments ranging from 

A with a staff of 2-4 to E with a staff of 

15 or more. It is to be noted that the 

numerical size of the department deter-

mines its class and ultimately the qualifi-

cation and salaries of positions. 

T u r n i n g to the personnel specification 

section of the pay plan, it states that the 

chief catalog librarian of a class D catalog 

department is of professional grade 6. 

There are ten professional grades of posi-

tion ranging from 1 to 10, unit 10 being 

the highest. Each grade includes various 

positions; i.e., grade 3 includes chief refer-

ence librarian for class A reference depart-

ment, document librarian, assistant chief 

librarian of class 1 library, and approxi-

mately 33 other professional positions. 

Each grade has a salary schedule and all 

positions of the same grade have the same 

salary schedule and the same minimum 

educational qualifications and experience. 

T h e chief catalog librarian is professional 

grade 6 and should receive an annual sal-

ary ranging from $3600 to $4500. T h e 

assistant chief catalog librarian is profes-

sional grade 5, salary $3000 to $3400. 

In addition to these two positions, the 

classification plan provides the following 

positions for a class D catalog department: 

catalog librarian (reviser), professional 

grade 3 or 4, salary $1860 to $2340 or 

$2400 to $2880; catalog librarian (spe-

cialist in a subject or language field), pro-

fessional grade 3 or 4, salary $1860 to 

$2340 or $2400 to $2880; classification 

librarian, professional grade 3 or 4, salary 

$1860 to $2340 or $2400 to $2880; senior 

catalog librarian, professional grade 3, 

salary $1860 to $2340; intermediate cata-

MARCH, 1944 177 



log librarian, professional grade 2, salary 

$1620 to $1800; junior catalog librarian, 

professional grade I, salary $1500 to 

$1620. These represent the varying ranks 

of catalog librarian which might be in a 

class D catalog department. 

Classification of Catalogers 

Actually there are only two ranks in 

our catalog department, catalog librarian 

and assistant catalog librarian, with four 

additional professional catalogers un-

ranked. T h u s while two of the positions 

fit the terminology of the national model 

the other four positions had to be ranked 

before the department could be evaluated 

in terms of the classification and pay plan. 

A f t e r studying the duties and the educa-

tional requirements of the various cata-

loging positions specified in the plan, the 

head of our catalog department assigned 

the following ranks to our four unclassed 

professional positions: two senior catalog 

librarians, one intermediate catalog librar-

ian, and one junior catalog librarian. 

Hence five grades of professional service 

are represented in our catalog department: 

one each of grades 6, 5, 2, and 1 and two 

of grade 3. According to the pay plan the 

average minimum salary of such a catalog 

department should be $2240 per year. It 

should be remembered that this average 

is using the minimum of the salary range 

of each position, i.e., for chief catalog 

librarian $3600 instead of $4500. A c t u -

ally the average salary of the members of 

the catalog department is $i66j.2 T h e 

most obvious discrepancy between the clas-

sification and pay plan and the library 

2 A g e n e r a l s a l a r y i n c r e a s e f o r the f a c u l t y of the 
e n t i r e college based on the rise in the cost of l i v i n g 
has raised this figure to $1805. S i n c e the i n c r e a s e , 
h o w e v e r , w a s not based on the v a l u e of l i b r a r y 
s e r v i c e s , the g i v e n figures are a more a c c u r a t e com-
parison w i t h a n y minimum s a l a r y schedule. O n 
such a basis, the minimum s t a n d a r d s t h e m s e l v e s 
should be raised p r o p o r t i o n a l l y . 

organization of Penn State was this salary 

factor. T h e comparative averages of the 

catalog department were by no means rep-

resentative of the great extremes between 

the actual and the minimum standard. 

For at least one position the minimum 

salary recommended was 100 per cent 

above the actual salary. T h i s pessimistic 

picture was not enhanced by an introduc-

tory paragraph in the syllabus which 

states: " A l l the standards set up are mini-

mum standards. It is expected that aver-

age and better-than-average libraries will 

exceed these minimum salary schedules 

for the various grades." W a s our library 

so far below the average that it had 100 

per cent difference in actual and mini-

mum standard salaries? 

In self-defense it should be stated that 

the salaries of the Pennsylvania State 

College Library compare favorably with 

the average library salaries. N o valid 

statistics are available, but a few isolated 

figures indicate that the average salary for 

librarians in 1936 was $1625 per annum. 

T h e average salary of a staff member of 

the Pennsylvania State College Library 

based on 1942 figures was $1749.99. A l -

lowing for the six-year discrepancy in • 

time, the disparity between the two figures 

is not enough to justify the conclusion that 

salaries at Penn State are 50 per cent 

below minimum standards unless it is as-

sumed that salaries the country over bear 

the same general relation to the standard 

used. 

Cursory application of the pay plan to 

other departments revealed additional 

readjustments which would have to be 

made before a thorough classification could 

be accomplished. O u r reference depart-

ment ranks as a class A reference depart-

ment having 2 to 3 full-time members 

or their equivalents. O n l y 2 of the mem-

v 178 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



bers are professional librarians: the refer-

ence librarian and the assistant reference 

librarian. According to the classification 

plans terminology, "assistant reference li-

brarian" is used only for class D and E 

reference departments. T h i s represents a 

typical instance in which the specific li-

brary has a titled position which does not 

appear in the classification plan. A more 

frequent occurrence is the classification 

plan having titled positions which the in-

dividual library does not have. In both 

cases the library would have to make up 

its own classes of positions, based upon 

the duties of the position plus the profes-

sional and personal qualifications of the 

librarian necessary to capably fill the posi-

tion. Differences of terminology are 

minor ones, however; the administrator 

can easily identify nontitled or unlike-

titled positions by comparing the duties 

with those specified in the classified serv-

ice. T h e professional grade having been 

assigned, the salary schedule would be that 

of other positions^ of similar grades. 

Positions Not Included 

Perhaps an entire department would 

have to be classified if the department did 

not appear in the classification plan. T h i s 

was the case with our serials department, 

since no separate serials department ap-

peared in the classification plan. T h e au-

thors are very careful, however, to state 

explicitly that the omission of a depart-

ment or a specific position is not to imply 

that that department or position has no 

recognized professional status. It simply 

means that each individual library must 

work out its own classification and pay 

plan using the published one as a model 

to aid and direct its endeavors. T h e com-

mittee constantly reiterates the necessity 

for each library to set up its own classifi-

cation of positions and to assign these po-

sitions a certain suggested professional 

grade which should establish a system of 

equal pay for equal work. 

Salaries in the order and reference de-

partments were much more in line than 

those of the catalog department. Both 

are class A departments, having 2-3 full-

time members. T h e size of a department 

which determines its class varies for dif-

ferent departments. T h a t is, a class C 

catalog department has 8-10 full-time 

members, a class C order department 6-7 

full-time members, and a class C circula-

tion department 15-19 full-time members. 

T h e pay plan's average minimum salary 

for both our reference and order depart-

ments would be $ 1 7 4 0 ; actually it is 

$i650. 3 But the circulation department, 

like the catalog department, falls con-

siderably below the suggested minimum. 

W i t h 14 full-time members or their equiv-

alent, the circulation is a class B circula-

tion department. Professional members 

include the chief circulation librarian, as-

sistant chief circulation librarian, and in-

termediate circulation librarian. O n l y 

the last title had to be arbitrarily assigned, 

our designation being "circulation assist-

ant." T h e minimum salary schedule 

would result in an average yearly salary 

of $1960 per member; actually the aver-

age salary is $1533. For our library, 

salary discrepancies between the actual 

and the theoretical were greater in the 

larger departments and in positions having 

the most administrative responsibility. 

Should additional applications result in 

similar conclusions, the plan may reveal 

that the administrative functions of li-

brarians have been overlooked by those 

who hold the purse strings. 

8 T h e s e figures, like those of the c a t a l o g depart-
ment, do not take into account the general i n c r e a s e 
based on rise in cost of living. 

MARCH, 1944 179 



A self-evaluating score card to assist in 

a qualitative and quantitative appraisal of 

various phases of library administration 

was eliminated because of war conditions. 

T h i s omission of a means of testing po-

tential reorganizations is unfortunate since 

realignments made in libraries during and 

on account of the war could be evaluated 

by the score card. In a "normal period" 

such realignments will be more difficult. 

T o effect alterations, eliminations, and the 

combining of positions or departments, is 

an operation which involves obvious diffi-

culties which even the best combination 

of ruthlessness and tact cannot overcome. 

It is when positions are voluntarily vacated 

that reorganization can proceed with a 

minimum of abrupt adjustments. T h i s is 

especially true in a profession which tol-

erates rather than eradicates mediocrity 

and in which dead wood is permitted to 

rot in peace rather than be mercifully cut 

down with the "efficiency axe." 

Another omission is the lack of stand-

ards for the relative size of departments. 

W h i l e the class of each department is ar-

bitrarily set by the number of people 

within the department, no suggestion is 

made as to how large a specific depart-

ment should be. O u g h t a class 6 library 

to have a class C catalog department? 

O r should it be a class B or a class D ? 

H o w large should the circulation depart-

ment be? T h e relative size of the various 

departments may adjust themselves to the 

needs of the institution. But on the other 

hand, a one-sided development may occur 

either through the personal emphasis of 

the administrator or through the superior 

initiative of one department head. In 

either instance the balance of the library 

organization may be upset, especially if 

not measured against certain accepted 

standards. A n d if such standards are 

measurable, they should appear in a clas-

sification plan. 

Education and Experience 

T h e two factors emphasized in stressing 

qualifications for positions of various 

grades are education and experience. 

These are the prime requisites for person-

nel specifications for positions in any clas-

sification plan, be it for business, industry, 

or government. Librarianship, however, 

possesses an attribute which limits the 

weight of one of these factors. It has a 

certain educational homogeneity. T h e 

great majority of librarians possess similar 

educational backgrounds, B . A . or B.S. 

degrees plus library school degrees. T h u s 

promotion to a higher grade of service be-

comes primarily based on experience. 

T h i s could result in seniority becoming 

almost the sole basis of advancement, a 

practice which has proven to possess the 

inherent defect of stifling individual am-

bition and initiative on the theory that 

time and only time cai\ produce deserved 

promotions. T o avoid this pitfall it will 

be necessary for administrators to abjure 

a too slavish adherence to these "necessary 

professional qualifications." N o classifi-

cation scheme, of course, can form indi-

vidual qualifications into a set pattern. 

T h e disparities of individual worth will 

have to be determined by the adminis-

trator. 

Finally, the minimum and maximum 

salary schedules are extremely high in 

view of present professional salaries. T h e 

librarian who attempts to evaluate his 

library in the light of the suggested salary 

levels will be very discouraged. Samples 

of salary disparities between the pay plan 

and salaries of the Pennsylvania State 

College Library have been given. T h e 

effort to increase salary levels is necessary 

v 180 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



and praiseworthy, but to raise so much in 

theory may result in no raise in practice. 

Administrators and boards of trustees will 

be hard-pressed to use the committee's 

minimum and maximum figures as a yard-

stick to measure current salary schedules. 

T h e theory is so far above the practice that 

the theory may be discarded as sheer wish-

ful thinking. Optimism in planning for 

the future is good. But when suggested 

minimum salaries are as much as 50 per 

cent above normal current salaries, they 

would seem to me millennial salaries. 

But despite its several acknowledged 

shortcomings, the classification and pay 

plan, if utilized, is a valuable contribution 

to the library profession. T h e committee 

has prepared a comprehensive and detailed 

plan by which a librarian can evaluate the 

personnel and organization of his library. 

T h e plan emphasizes an impersonal and 

scientific approach to the problems of 

classification of positions and salary sched-

ules and such an approach is as essential 

to good administration in libraries as it is 

in business, industry, and government. 

T h e plan is sufficiently flexible to cover the 

many variations in library organizations 

which exist even in institutions of com-

parable size and function. It represents 

a synthesis of years of library administra-

tion of the highest caliber. It provides 

an excellent opportunity for librarians to 

evaluate their organizations by tested 

methods. If ij:s potentialities remain un-

realized, the fault will be with library 

administrators and not with the committee 

whose efforts have produced an opus wor-

thy the serious consideration of every 

librarian. 

Libraries and the Coming of "Workshops" 
(Continued from page 147) 

the solution of these problems through 

informal contact with people with like dif-

ficulties. In the past the use of books and 

the truths fti them have been objective. 

W e have felt we must keep the library 

and its services impersonal. W e now 

must take our wares from the formal at-

mosphere that can be so deadening. W e 

must make our libraries warm and in-

viting. W e must be willing to cooperate, 

to make education and educational ends 

interesting, not boring. N o w that we are 

not so oppressed with great numbers of 

students, we must not be so busy about 

many things that we cannot talk over 

problems and books informally with any 

student. W e must simplify the approach 

to ourselves and to our stock. W h i l e the 

workshop as yet may not be of enough 

importance in the college picture as a 

whole to change methods and techniques 

of library service, it is showing us that 

the librarian must be approachable enough 

to contribute to new ideas and to student 

problems from his own research, his own 

experience, and his own thinking. H e 

must have time to show a path through 

the library material that will help the 

student to reach his answers as easily and 

quickly as possible. T o paraphrase, he 

must make "print as exciting and as easy 

as sin." 

MARCH, 1944 181