There's jobs for social work people with master's, it just is the sort of work most don't want to actually do. It doesn't pay a lot and you have to deal with people who make bad decisions or are generally "low" in social hierarchy. It's weird how many people go into social work and think they'll just be working with nice, well put together people or just in an office. I think most picture themselves as being "in charge" of a charity, without realizing that will probably never happen unless they are rich.
My wife wanted to do teenage drug and alcohol recovery. She enjoyed it, but whenever one would fall off the wagon, it usually resulted in death. It was very hard on her, so she took a job with an insurance company that, for all intents and purposes, was telling the elderly they were going to die either in a nursing home or in their home.
... Someone has to do it. The collections for a subject like that are huge, technical, and diverse. It isn't her only job.
biology librarian. Librarians of all sorts get mocked by the general public, but the general public is pretty ignorant.
Care to take a crack at defining what a "biology librarian" is? It just sounds like a fluff title that dissolves down to "I define and don't define people by their biological assignments". It's like calling a trashman a "sanitation engineer". You're not an engineer, you're a f(*&#ing trashman.
Alright, whatever. I think "biology librarian" is completely self-explanatory, and not outrageous considering how big the biology division is at UT. It's like how many departments? I think 3. And there are lots of scholarly material in their possession or trust. That an assistant professor has the title of biology librarian doesn't strike me as odd in the least. You know that many hospitals have medical librarians, right? Should I define that? I bet the Ag campus and UT Vet hospital might each have a librarian or two as well. There's a lot of books o' learnin' at them colleges.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, it's just the title "biology librarian" is something you don't hear everyday.
So not only did you completely fail to define it, you chose the route of patronizing. Ironic, considering this is a thread about academia. The issue isn't if this woman is a biologist with the title "biology librarian". The issue, like I already said (and you said exactly the same earlier, oddly enough) is if she's a sociologist with a fluffed title pushing a very slanted agenda. Saying "they" and "them" are gender specific (they're not) and pushing an academic institution to replace them with whatever alien-sounding nonsense she is pushing for is not, to me, scholarly or academic. You said this earlier: That office is the "Pride office" run by this woman who calls herself a "biology librarian" so that would be the "job service" for her "craft". Indeed. The trouble is usually sorting out what you should be outraged at in this day and age.
I think the pronoun stuff is nonsense and a waste of time, given her position. I think the "office of fluff" stuff is nonsense and a waste of resources. I do not think specialized librarians for specialized collections within an institution of higher learning are anything to be concerned with. I interpreted your "good grief" or whatever in response to "biology librarian" as mocking that position. If I misinterpreted you, I apologize. It wasn't intentional.