+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: IfA - A Chartered Institute (/showthread.php?tid=3379)
IfA - A Chartered Institute - Unitof1 - 16th August 2010
Quote:
I presume after graduating from a recognised course.
That will exclude all BAs and be purely BSc
IfA - A Chartered Institute - 2403381 - 16th August 2010
ex-archaeologist Wrote:I have also just realised it couldn't be called the Chartered Institute of Archaeologists as its initials would be CIA.
Hey if they called it the CIA I'd pay the subscription
Imagine, it would give you the right to turn up to a site in suit and dark glasses, talking into the cuff of your sleve. And people say that we don't look proffesional! Just think 25 agent smith's digging a henge monument!
On a more serious note there are some BA courses that hold a higher practical content than many BSc courses, these tend too hold out better in the commercial field. As such I'm not sure how you would place one above the other? Unless it was for a more specialised role such as enviro or maritime? However, even so I think it would be unfair to do this with specialist roles until MA level qualifications by which point its kind of academic as the course would be more job specific anyway. Sorry I'm writing as I'm thinking rather than thinking then writing.
IfA - A Chartered Institute - Unitof1 - 16th August 2010
BAs believe in gods and need so called practicals because they aren’t. Then there’s masters courses for emos who did not do the undergraduate archaeology course that the academic institutions create by watering down their undergraduate courses particularly on the science side to create masters courses. where do master courses fit in..
IfA - A Chartered Institute - 2403381 - 16th August 2010
Whilst I would agree with you regarding a few MA courses, I think that those generalisations aren't entirely fair. Especially regarding many BA courses, I have seen many BA grad's arrive for the first day on a commercial site and at least they know which end of a trowel to use. More so than a few BSc grads anyway.
The thing is this, I don't think either is better or worse than the other. Both give a grounding into the whys and the hows of what we do. I don't think its essential, nor do I think it makes you better at your job than someone without any qualifications. But it does in many cases give people enough commitment that they are willing too stick it out when they are on a freezing cold site up too there knees in liquid clay brushing the snow of a feature that is frozen like concrete! (Which on another note I'd like to make a complaint about. When I was at uni, at no point was I shown an image of this kind of work! It was always pics of tanned good looking people in various states of undress gently brushing loose sand of another temple/gladiator/gold mask/ complete pot etc... Did anyone get shown the truth at uni? Or were we all lied too?)
IfA - A Chartered Institute - Unitof1 - 16th August 2010
so you did do a BA?
IfA - A Chartered Institute - Dinosaur - 17th August 2010
To take this to its logical conclusion, anyone else have to regularly read archaeology PhD theses? The standard of some of them is so awful you can't figure out how anyone then got to call themselves 'Dr', and seriously questions whether they could be a qualification taken into consideration...... :face-stir:
IfA - A Chartered Institute - Kel - 17th August 2010
I'm "only" on a BA course and at my exalted seat of learning we do as much practical work as the guys on the BSc courses (apart from the Field/Practical course) (now axed). In fact in the first year, we also did as much science as the BScs. Go figure.
And for the record I don't personally believe in gods. I am, however, willing to take account of the fact that other people did/do.
IfA - A Chartered Institute - Sparky - 17th August 2010
:face-topic:
But I agree with Dino on this one. I would lay the blame at the feet of their supervisors who, desparate to impart the workings of their prodigies and their theories, let the standards drop. Worse still, is the IfA giving MIFA status to PhD holders on purley that basis. I have seen a number of overtly confident PhD MIFA suffixed individuals making a right balls-up of excavation and even more a dogs dinner of post-ex.
IfA - A Chartered Institute - vulpes - 17th August 2010
what a load of pointless circular whojamababble. Sure there are numpties with PhDs and MIFA just as there are numpties without.... The only important difference here is that the numpty with the MIFA or other coporate IFA grade is an accountable numpty, and I know which kind I prefer.
As for my earlier indiscretion Hosty, one thousand apologies. I was merely trying to underline a similar point - i.e. IFA membership gives an indication of experience and competency that is widely recognised. Without it we only have the individual's word on the matter. As such it provides a useful shorthand amongst other benefits.
IfA - A Chartered Institute - ex-archaeologist - 17th August 2010
I agree, I think this thread has veered off topic. It should be about chartered status for the IFA and the future development of the profession. As some commentators have said archaeology is still a young profession, antiquarians and academics aside, it started in the 1970's, but didn't kick off until PPG16. Whatever the outcome a decision by the IFA to seek chartered stutus will place archaeology at a crossroads and shape the future course of the profession.
I only put the the reference to other professions regulating qualifications in as a last minute edit as I didn't want people thinking that I was suggesting that people could walk in off the street and charter as a forester or PR bod after two years. It was never meant to be the main thrust of my argument.
:face-topic: