Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/tabl...rchaeology
It makes for intersting reading, and will help in deciding..
one of the most telling marks was that archaeology - compared to other subjects rarely went above a 50-50 chance of getting a job!
as opposed to architecture with was around 95-100%!!!
what are we like???
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
So with architecture you're almost guaranteed a job, and you get to have an all-out war of attrition against Prince Charles.
Is it too late to retrain?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
Actually, the comparison between architecture and archaeology is an interesting one. I'll try and explain: this is what an architect's training (from the University of Maryland because it was highly ranked on Google) looks like.
"The first two years of the curriculum focus on developing a broad-based and well-rounded liberal education complemented by a selection of courses that incrementally introduce students to architecture. Students are exposed to the numerous resources of the University while gaining a better understanding of their own academic and career interests. The Architecture Program provides undergraduate advisors who work closely with each student to ensure that his or her career goals are being met and that appropriate academic opportunities are being pursued. The latter two years of the curriculum are centered on design studios, with complementary coursework in architectural history, theory, technology and visual media.
In a sense, when combined with the Master of Architecture (professional degree) the pre-professional Bachelor of Science in Architecture degree can be viewed as analogous to pre-law or pre-med baccalaureates. "
So after a Bachelor's an architect isn't considered capable of operating as a professional. More important, their training (cast in archaeology terms) is focused at the BSc level on the history and theory of archaeology, and producing the equivalent of DBAs and project designs. Then, during the professional degree (MA), they learn how to cost projects, engineering and management principles and that sort of thing.
What are they not learning? They're not learning HOW TO PUT UP THE BUILDING, that is, the equivalent of excavation and recording in archaeology!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Another interesting comparison! They then go on to a practice and do a couple of years as a junior
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
I've heard that on the Continent in some parts the excavator is considered a technician and separate from the archaeologist who is more of a project manager.
I guess this makes the question 'Do we want commercial archaeology (specifically the excavation and recording process at the trowel's edge) to be considered a skilled trade or a graduate profession?'.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
The architecture comparison is interesting. In terms of training the analogy holds up well.
I, for my part, don't want to see a divide opening up between excavator and archaeologist. I think we've made a case by trial and error for excavation by archaeologists exactly because such a large proportion of interpretation has to be made during the course of excavation. Remember, the builders in construction have a blueprint to work from but the excavator is part of drawing the actual blueprint. Once the feature is gone, it's gone.
From our discussion last year, I think the consensus was that a new archaeologist was expected to have some awareness of process (and also and awareness that they've only just begun to learn).
Some nuances of this debate are peculiarly British. In particular the trade vs profession debate because at every level from policy planning to self identification that means something to the British psyche. Archaeology is equally both, not just as an industry, but for the majority of those involved on a day-to-day level as well. It's like that joke the Germans have about engineers: "In German if you say you're an engineer you're invited in to meet the daughter, in England to meet the washing machine."
I still feel that it's important that where practicable everybody in archaeology should have digging experience because the higher up you go the more of an impact not understanding the process will have. (Can I once again mention academics who are incapable of interpreting a site report? Not all, but it does happen.) Not to mention, I'd not trust someone who had not had plentiful first-hand excavation experience with the project design. (Just like on the whole I find many academics unduly pessimistic about what info can be recovered by excavation. But then working with students at roughly the same level year after year will have that effect.)
The way things work at present everybody is so impatient to be promoted above being a digger because that is the bottom rung. The effect of this though is that the best excavators are taken away from the field. We desperately need a recognised senior site assistant grade which allows the most able diggers to stay both in the field and in archaeology longer.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
There is a pretty substantial difference between architects and archaeologists, beyond the extensive training and pay - you don't need 30-40 (or more) architects to carry out work on site. If you did architects would get paid a lot less.
Are there any other professions that really compare with archaeology in this sense - where you have a vast number of people working on one large project, the majority of whom have at least one degree? In most other areas there is surely an evident divison between skilled tradespeople and graduate management (or whatever you want to call it). The question is whether it is something that would be good for/necessary/beneficial in archaeology. I still couldn't see it improving wages though.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
There are just two fundamental differences between the two professions.
That is the profession of architecture is based upon stress testing, durability and 'litigative' due diligence, archeology conversely is based around the study of the dead, which falls into the 'subjective determination' of due diligence.
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
I know Lampeter's slipped a bit in some ways but we still did ok in the RAE. I'm certain we cannot deserve to rate so near the bottom. And giving us a value added score of 2 is just plain ridiculus.
Singer of dodgy songs, teller of tall stories, maker of pretty things and prehistoric performer.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Brochfael,
I could be wrong about which institution but I think that Lampeter had very low admission numbers this year for archaeology which could cause problems for the department and hence the low ratings. Hope not.
...or was it another Welsh uni....?
