standard of new graduates

[leg11aug]

Thanks Tim, exactly the sort of figures I was wondering about.

When the going gets weird...

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by srd123
[brmany students choose archaeology because they think it'll be an easy/dossing degree rather than because they have any real desire to be archaeologists...

True in my day too, however, one or two of the "no way am I being an archaeologist types", later went on to be very successful....archaeologists. I mean, what were they thinking of ? [:p]

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[rachstebbs]

I didn't choose to do archaeology because i thought it was a 'doss'or easy course, but I didn't want to be a field archaeologist when I first started. I wanted to study ancient history and classics, and got into archaeolgy that way. Now I cannot imagine wanting to do anything else. And slowly but surely I'm getting there!

[1man1desk]

A degree in most subjects can have two purposes -

1. The "educational" purpose, in which the course of study is intended to further the intellectual development of the student without necessarily training them for a specific career;

2. The "vocational" purpose, in other words training an individual for a specific career.

Both are perfectly valid, and there is no reason to disrespect students studying archaeology for purpose 1. However, most university courses tend to emphasise that approach rather than the vocational training one. Where they do think in vocational terms, the vocation they have in mind is an academic career in archaeology - an option available to very few.

I wouldn't complain about the quality of graduates coming out - I'd complain about the quality/appropriateness of the training they have received.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Spot on, 1man (shouldn't your name be 1person1desk these days?). More or less what I have alluded to/droned on about.

It seems to me that we're all pretty much agreed on this theme, on different threads on various forums. Everyone seeems to agree that more and better fieldwork training is required, plus what I shall call CRM issues for what of a better word, but we have had a number of good suggestions how this should be done. My personal fave at present is for degrees to be more or less as they are, ok some more practical aspects, but with more hardcore practical stuff for those that wish/require it afterwards, maybe (ideally) in partnership with the industry. That way people can specialise - be academics, specialist fieldworkers, science types, boney types, pot persons or whatever, after a common grounding. But I'm open to better ideas...

Maybe a point for the BAJR conference???

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[1man1desk]

My approach would be to make a year out on placements a requirement as part of any archaeology degree, with at least half of that year to be devoted to fieldwork. Many other more vocational degrees (eg. architecture) do something similar.

A couple of practical problems though - where would all the placement opportunities come from? and what would be the effect on the job market for those already out of university?

I would love to see some comment from a university lecturer on this theme, but I've never seen any postings from an academic on BAJR.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

quote:I would love to see some comment from a university lecturer on this theme, but I've never seen any postings from an academic on BAJR.

This very much highlights something that was noticeable at TAG last year. In a very interesting session called "Creating tomorrow's archaeologists: Who sets the agenda?" opinion was canvassed from various groups including professionals, academics and students. On almost all issues the professionals and students had similar opinions. What was striking however was how at odds this was with the academics view.

Ivory towers anyone?

[Cautionary Tale]

I'm not sure whether that makes me happy that students are being independant minded or sad that lecturers haven't been able to convince their students of the validity of their arguement.[?]

(I really have worked in the field)

[srd123]

quote:I would love to see some comment from a university lecturer on this theme

One of the lecturers on my degree course made the point that having a degree is no longer enough - to be employed in fieldwork you now need a Masters too.

Having spoken to a few guys who were on my degree course and are now doing a Masters in Practical Archi, their description of the course and what they do on it sounds remarkably like what I expected to be on my degree course to prepare me for doing field work.

On a related noted, I agree that a year in industry would be a great thing for archi degree courses. However, when I went off to do a Computer Science degree, many years ago, that had an industrial year, and finding a placement wasn't that easy. This was back when IT was on the up and when few unis did sandwich courses. Thus, I too, would question to practicalities of trying to get this amount of training for this number of students...?

[mercenary]

quote:I'm not sure whether that makes me happy that students are being independant minded or sad that lecturers haven't been able to convince their students of the validity of their arguement.

From my perspective (as a professional) the students seemed to be pretty realistic, as I think the professionals were. The academics however came across as hopelessly outdated (clueless even)in their opinions about the future of archaeology and who was going to provide the training.

It made me think immediately of many of my disillusioned colleagues who have done recent masters courses, who complain that the courses taught them almost nothing of practical use.

Were there any other BAJR members at this session, and if so did you draw the same conclusions about academia[?]