I read this interesting write-up on the subject matter @ http://www.librarystuff.net/2006/07/librarian-just-title.html. According to the blogger, "You don't have to have an MLS to be a librarian. The MLS doesn't teach passion, empathy, user focused skills, or provide experience. Some library science schools don't even teach you how to perform research well. " Is this not true?

Further s/he asked "how does one become a librarian, even without that piece of paper? Well, experience helps. A lot. Who would you rather be doing important research for you, one that could mean getting or not getting a multi-million dollar client (and don't tell me that this doesn't happen, because it has happened to me many many times)". S/he compared a 25 year veteran of library who owns his own company, networks like crazy, and can walk circles around other library managers and researchers and a fresh graduate of the best library school in the country who has never stepped into a real library and concluded that "I'd even take that 25 year non MLS library veteran with passion for the work than an MLS librarian with 25 years experience who has no...well...UMPH!" Is this not also true?

It is safe, if you care that having a piece of paper that proves that you can write papers and take tests will not have any place if quality experience is not present. The paper qualification is great and should be a requirement in my own view. In fact, it is a starting point. However, I do not agree with the conclusion of this master piece that we must not stick to the principle of an "MLS is required". Within the context of developing nations, we are not missing out such people if they are present.