standard of new graduates

[sniper]

i certainly agree with the point that certain people who go on to Masters level should probably not bother, at least for a couple of years until they've got a handle on the job, but that's not to say that they are a waste of time for everyone, you've just not got to expect that it will suddenly mean that you can get a job easier than anyone else

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Louloubelle]

Thanks for that Troll - just the vote of confidence I really. So should I just pack it all in now and apply to Liverpool Victoria?

The idea of doing this is to update my small and very ancient knowledge of archaeology and learn about field archaeology instead of all the anglo-saxon brooch typologies I hoovered up donkeys years ago. I don't expect to get a better job at the end of it..I just expect to be able to get a job, and to be able to do it well, instead of being a clueless imbecile with a useless degree.

So ner.

[the invisible man]

quote:Originally posted by troll

Would`nt run a firm of electricians unless you were a sparky first now would you?

Yes. This is very often the case. In fact it applies to most trades and industries. Being a sparky doesn't mean you can run a firm.


Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Troll`s in trouble again.....
ok, I`m moaning about the standard of new graduates.I think archaeology undergrads in general get a p*ss-poor deal.Plenty of debt and complacent teaching to say the least.Plenty of grads walk onto site and feel as though they are drowning because the skills required are simply not taught-in some cases, not even alluded to.I`m on the side of new grads and point the finger unreservedly at the academic institutions.I feel that units could allocate training mentors for newbies rather than sit back and watch them flounder.That`s just rude.
I`m struggling with this Masters/no Masters thing at the minute-see thread "pastures new". In the context of prospective field archs-I think what I`m trying to say is simply this-get your degree and go out and do the job.A masters is a debt burden that has it`s place much later-either when a specialism fancies your tickle or, the bodies too knackered to dig anymore! On the Electrician analogy-I`m simply saying that I would hope that ex/practising field archs are the ones running field units. If one can`t even see the archaeology-one should`nt be making decisions on it.......

[srd123]

Of course, one reason why the unis are not turning out graduates with better practical skills could be the standard of students they recieve after 6th form....another quote from one of my old lecturers was something along the lines of "I was hoping to teach them archaeology but it looks like I've got to teach them to write first".

But on the other hand, while practical skills may be not quite up to the standards of the old days (?), research skills may be improving. And for a uni, turning out graduates with good research skills is a good thing: rather than going off to get a proper job doing fieldwork, all the graduates come back to uni and pay lots of money to be post-grads... (erm, that'll be me).



Likewise, my previous post about the suggestion that a masters is needed to learn fieldwork also benefits the unis somewhat.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by srd123But on the other hand, while practical skills may be not quite up to the standards of the old days (?), research skills may be improving.

Apologies for sounding so out of date, but what does that actually mean?

Are you saying that research 'access' is easier with the aid of internet search engines that it used to be when one had to trawl through typed or hand written catalogues. In which case, your summary of new graduate skills really reads 'practical skills may be not quite up to the standards of the old days, but capable of pressing a button'. Oh such pessimism carried on the shoulders of youth!!

I profess to having had the opportunity of observing occassional batches of new graduates over a period of some 20 years. My experience of recent graduates is that they are much the same as new graduates have ever been. I don't ever recall a 'golden' age of graduates in that time, although I have to admit that many of today's archaeological output are more openly Thatcherite than their predecessors, (even those who graduated at the height of the Iron Lady's power)!!

I think there is a problem and it is more to do with the availability of on-job training than with the standard of graduates. That itself may have something to do with trimming budgets for reasons of so-called competitiveness. On the other hand I know of a number of firms who believe that taking on and training graduates is a better medium-term investment than relying on the short-term uncertainties of recruiting from the digging circuit. More power to them...

[srd123]

Nope, I wasn't alluding to research being 'easier' due to the interweb, but to the possibility that the way that teaching (in general) has changed over the years has changed the skill set of the students. Two reasons:

In the past students tended to have many more hours of lectures. These days there are many fewer hours of contact time (and it appears to be decreasing every year) and so students are encouraged more to read around the subject. They have to go out and hunt down the information rather than being given it in lectures and thus their research skills should be better. But, there being less contact time means that hands-on practical training decreases.

Secondly, for the arts, especially, the whole educational system has changed. Perfect spelling and grammar are not the targets, nor is learning by heart the highlights of the great British Empire. Instead, students are encouraged to be more creative and imaginative and to see things from both sides. Whether these new post-modernist approaches to education are a good thing or not is an entirely different bag of cats, but they do tend to put one in the right mind-set for post-processual theoretical archaeology. And one might further argue that the loss or dumbing down of subjects such as metal work, wood work, PE, sport, horticulture, etc, tends to diminish the expectation of doing a job that requires physical activity when leaving school.

[sniper]

I would still expect people to be able to spell, know proper use of grammar and be able to write an essay. When research skills for PhD students include sessions on how to write an essay and how to reference properly, you have to worry and wonder how they managed to get to that level if they can't do those sort of things already...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[the invisible man]

Certainly my uni requires correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. Quite rightly in mu op but then I am rather old...

From various threads on two forums (fora?) I see two strands. First, I think we all agree that more practical training is required; perhaps we vary on how much should be provided by the unis and how much by employers, and if its best as a placement year or post-degree - or some balance of the two.

Secondly, it seems that is insufficient classroom CRM stuff, if people are getting degrees wqithout having heard of an SMR. I like the idea of getting working pros (!) in to give lectures on CRM, contract law, hertige law, how to do a DBA, intro to project management, basics of tendering, employment law and so on. Bit like other professions really....

As I said before somewhere, some of this stuff could perhaps be done post degree at evening slasses, to gain a professiosnal qualification rather like the architect's Part 3. But certainly (and I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "but") the basics should be covered within a degree course.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[srd123]

quote:I would still expect people to be able to spell, know proper use of grammar and be able to write an essay.

Well, yes, you would hope so, but in these days of WPs and speel/gramer checkers it seems a lot less important to be perfect in these areas. Likewise, the number of youngsters these days that don't know how to do long division (or have even heard of a log table) is surprisingly high. As an example of what goes on in some schools: my S.O. is a teacher and was told not to correct spelling mistakes in the children's work because it would undermine their confidence

But, my intension was not to say that spelling, punctuation and so on are not taught still, but that the emphersis is now elsewhere - given the choice between something with perfect spelling and grammar but very run of the mill argument, or something with enlightened and fresh argument and slightly imperfect (but still understandable) spelling, etc, then the latter is the one most likely to advance the subject.