standard of new graduates

[the invisible man]

The case you mention is most certainly a breach of the planning consent. You can make little changes but three times the size and ina different place is pushing it a tad! Unfortunately most LPA's can't or won't afford enforcement officers.

The other problem is that the undergound stuff, be it foundations, drains or services, do not generally the concern the planners, so if there is a change that doesn't affect the sticky-up bits then no-one bothers to tell them, and they wouldn't be interested if you did. The only undergound thing that is usually concerend with planning is the archaeology of course, and of course everyone (else) will forget about it once the thing is under way.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[troll]

Tasty deep-strat archaeology is encountered.Two weeks left to run on a ridiculously timetabled field project.Preservation in situ decided upon.Reassured that piles would "miss" said archaeology,we go home.A revisit of the site (unofficial).Deep-strat archaeology trashed and now resembles a metal hair-brush.New grads who worked on site given first real taste of how our wonderful little system "works".New grads are becomming aware very quickly.........

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by troll New grads who worked on site given first real taste of how our wonderful little system "works".New grads are becomming aware very quickly.........

I have been weighing up some of the advantages and disadvantages of archaeology and degrees. (and please, please, please treat this is a matter of muse rather than a statement of intent....)

We are in a profession where most people accept the wages are poor and career prospects limited. The modern collegiate system leaves graduates thousands of pounds in debt before they even begin to work. University takes up three years. At the lowest level of minimal archaeological pay that equals a loss of circa ?40,000 in wages and maybe ?10-15,000 of student debt. This discussion has to date suggested that most graduates come into the 'profession' ill- equipped for the needs of the job.

We could start again. Drop the need for an archaeological degree and introduce an archaeological apprenticeship for school leavers aged 18. One day a week, day release paid for by the firm leading towards a Certificate of Competence/NVQ after three years. End result, trained workers, debt free at the age of 21 and with a qualification based upon practical competence. Can anyone tell me why that wouldn't work? Can anyone say why it would be less advanatageous that a degree?

I am not suggesting that there shouldn't be archaeology degrees for people who want to get into merchant banking, marry into the royal family or appear on Sunday afternoon TV, just that there ought to be a practical low cost alternative more suited to the needs of the profession. And in line with modern apprenticeships, in the building trade for example, one paid for by the employers rather than the employees.

[troll]

Does`nt that suggest that one does`nt actually need a higher education to become a professional archaeologist? What does that say to the world at large about the industry? Is`nt it bad enough as it is trying to persuade the world that we actually are qualified professionals in an equal vein to architects et al? Are you happy to see such an entry route as a valid prerequisite for working within all arms of the industry(not aimed at fieldies alone I hope!). You may have hit the nail on the head (not keen meself) but, if this ever becomes the state of play, I want my debt back.Before I leave the country!Not only that, had said new grads not undertaken years of study, they would`nt have been horrified by the failures of the current system described in my last.An educated and well informed workforce should lead to an evolving profession where ignorance of issues bigger than the day`s work is no longer excusable.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by troll

An educated and well informed workforce should lead to an evolving profession where ignorance of issues bigger than the day`s work is no longer excusable.

That ought to be the case, Troll. And I am guessing that now we no longer have the MSC/Job creation scheme that the archaeological workforce is (at least on paper) better educated and perhaps also better informed now than it has ever been.

That said though, I don't really see much evidence of the Great Leap Forward having even taken the first step on the road to storming the doors of Current Archaeology let alone the ivory towers of the IFA/EH/CBA.

I am not sure that 'professionalism' is all about degree qualifications. I think that archaeology might be on a surer track if at first it tried to achieve the level of professional respect (and salaries) accorded to managers in the building industry, stonemasons, master carpenters, plumbers and electricians rather than architects, estate agents and accountants. For that we may have to take one step backwards, before confidently striding two steps in the right direction.

(Any direct or indirect reference to discredited 60's politic in this mail just shows my age!!)

[the invisible man]

I'm not sure that it's such a bad idea. There is no reason why it should not lead to a degree, although it would take 5 years to get to an Honours degree. You would need to be committed () as I guess that you would need one day, one evening and some weekends contact time, plus of course all the coursework. This could tie in with what has been discussed on other threads, about eiter having a placement year or a post-degree professional qualification year - really you're just doing it in a different order.

There used to be parallels - I myself left school at 16, wandered into the ONC/HNC day-release route then slithered on to a part time degree course (day release and an evening) at a poly (I'm not sure if anyone does that any more). It takes a long long time though... But I reckon it was about the best way of doing it. But then I would, wouldn't I?

Quite a few distance learning courses are springing up. I@m not too sure about these as a rule though.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[1man1desk]

Kevin Wooldridge's suggestion is interesting, but it might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps we could consider a middle way approach. Most other professions divide into two categories:

• 'Professional staff' - i.e. those who want to go on to more senior management/academic roles
• 'Technical staff' - i.e. those who don't want to go on to those roles because they are further away from the actual job (e.g. CAD technicians, surveyors, etc. etc.)

The first group need a degree, and usually also need further professional qualifications obtained through CPD schemes, often leading to Chartered status.

The second group usually do have qualifications, but often not at degree level.

We could, if we wanted to (and I am not actually advocating it), take the view that anyone who wants to become a Project Officer or above falls into the first group and needs those qualifications. Those who don't want to do that might fall into the second group. A degree might benefit such people, but possibly not sufficiently to justify the cost/debt incurred.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
Kevin Wooldridge's suggestion is interesting, but it might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps we could consider a middle way approach. Most other professions divide into two categories:

• 'Professional staff' - i.e. those who want to go on to more senior management/academic roles
• 'Technical staff' - i.e. those who don't want to go on to those roles because they are further away from the actual job (e.g. CAD technicians, surveyors, etc. etc.)

The first group need a degree, and usually also need further professional qualifications obtained through CPD schemes, often leading to Chartered status. The second group usually do have qualifications, but often not at degree level.

I don't want to appear to undermine confidence in our education system, but what possible qualification does a degree in archaeology confer on anyone to manage an archaeological project/unit? Plenty of archaeology managers out there, even in this day and age, without degrees in archaeology....

It seems to me that, even allowing for most positive view of be this discussion to date, most archaeology graduates come into the profession with at most a tabula rasa. There is even the hint of a suggestion that some archaeology courses provide graduates with a 'negative' employment potential, ill-equiping them for the reality of the job.

Surely archaeology is a profession where everyone should stand an equal chance of progression dependent upon opportunity and proven ability. Yes, a degree is one ingredient of that, but as no archaeology degree in the UK provides a totally vocational course, it is not and should not be the final arbiter. By the time that most people start getting into management positions in this job anyway they are as far removed in years from their degree course as undergraduates are from an 11+ exam.

1man 1desk appears to advocate the 'deckchair syndrome' of early 20th century archaeology where having a degree meant you got to sit down and order the oiks around and no degree meant you pushed a wheelbarrow, rather in the manner that the BM shabbily treated Basil Brown at Sutton Hoo in the late 30's. Surely no-one wants to see those days bought back.

I do worry sometimes that the modern child of archaeology seems a tad more elitist than they used to be.

[27trowels]

Whilst im very new to this beautiful game we call archaeology i would say im quite well positioned to comment on the state of archaeology degrees in this country, being in the process of getting mine.

With the set up at bradford I am currently taking part in a placement year where i am learning all the realities of comercial archaeology in Britain. This experience, of actually working in archaeology, is proving by far the most usefull part of the degree so far. However without the past two years lectures and three months digging experience with Bradfords project in Italy then i would have felt overwhelmed by the number of techniques and ammount of knowledge required to work on site.

I believe that if you tailor the Bradford degree properly, as there are many choices regarding modules, and take advantage of all the other opertunities they offer then you will be well prepared for working in the real world of comercial archaeology.

Having a degree, masters or PHD, doesn't however make you a good archaeologist. Field archaeology is a skill that has to be developed over a long period of time and it cant be taught in a lecture theatre.I dont think anyone should be working on a site without having spent at least a month on a training dig where there are supervisors and other site staff whose job is to teach the basics of excavation and recording and can do that without having to worry about budgets, deadlines and developers etc.

[troll]

Lots to take on board here-seeing as I`ve just brewed a coffee and hav`nt taken site gear off-here`s a precis...
It`s taken us over 200 years to finally achieve a qualified workforce.In my opinion, there is nothing more dangerous to the finite resource than a field workforce consisting of labourers orchestrated by one degree-riddled idiot.Today, professional field archaeologists come with a huge package (now now) of skills and varying levels of experience.As I have said elsewhere, field archaeology is a specialism.One does`nt suddenly become a professional because he/she gives up sh*t shoveling. I agree-Kevin makes some really good points.I for one wish that I had gone down the HND/BSc route as those guys really did hit the ground running. If anything, an HND in practical archaeology is good enough.