Top up fees and future archaeology grads

[troll]

I`m loving this muchly.There is a distinct lack of voices from the new generation of archaeologists. I think that the points raised here are incredibly important.In terms of providing rocks with a coherent response, I`m going to have to think long and hard over a few ciggies before I offer my thoughts. Thank you Rocks!!

[mercenary]

I have been wondering if the recent rises in excavator pay in some recent ads reflect the lack of new grads entering the profession. It got me wondering when the first group of students having to pay fees will be graduating, and whether this has already happened. Whether numbers have dropped as a result of fees, or they are more heavily indebted and have to take more reliable employment to pay off loans. Either would affect the numbers coming into archaeology.

I don't think it is a coincidence that a number of arch departments are now closing. Lack of applicants perhaps?

If any of this is true we are rapidly approaching the situation I endured in Canada. Having to pay huge fees to study something with limited employment potential appealed only to the independently wealthy dilletante or the plain crazy (me).

While I welcome a market led rise in pay for those of us left in the profession, I can't help but feel that we need some new people with serviceable backs. (Cuz mine isn't)

[27trowels]

very interesting. I know that I would have had to think very carefully if I was having to pay 3000 quid a year. Im already going to leave uni about 13000 in debt (not counting the huge ammount of money i should owe to my parents). A few of the site staff i know barely earn enough for the repayments to kick in so they are going to have that debt hanging over them for a long time.

This will need some serious consideration from department heads and if universities make the choice to increase fees for them then that will almost certainly close some courses in the coming years.

I have to say that in principal I think that the new form of fee payment that comes with the increases is a good idea (pay them when your earning not when your trying to learn). With the starting rates of pay in archaeology however this could put people in serious financial difficulty and drive alot of graduates from the proffession.

Silver lining however, if the pool of new graduates does start drying up then units will have to start treating the current work force much better if they don't want to lose them.

Troll - you might have a point about general apathy within 'the youth'. Have to go freeze my fingers of on site now however so will come back to that later.

[Alfie]

Interesting point. I was wondering what the threashold is for repayments to kick in. I went to uni later in life after years on the circuit and I dont earn enough to have to repay my student loans. Probably never will either!

[mercenary]

Doen't it get lower each year?

[i_love_rocks]

I don't know what the threshold for repayment is with the new top-up fees, but in the old system it used to be start when you earned more than 10,000 p.a., which is barly more than minimum wage anyway. I guess they'll have to increase that for people that are being charged top-up fees.

I would be surprised if the rises in pay were directly related to student debts of new graduates. If that was the case how much do the recent pay rises actually help if you are in 13-15.000 debts from your studies already? Sounds like this may be just an inflation issue?

Another point which occurs to me is that top-up fees may also lead to a decrease in Master's students, i.e. a decrease in specialists (environmental, finds analysis etc) with a degree. Many people used to take out career development loans to do an MA, but already with high debts will people be willing to increase their debs even further?
Master courses are also the big money making scheme for many departments. A drop in master's students can therefore also lead to less chash for a uni department, which in turn means fewer facilities/ wages/ infrastructure leading to poorer standards.

I know a few people back from my time as an undegraduate who would have liked to go into field archaeology, but had to take up summer jobs during university holidays instead. As a result they didn't get the field experience they woud have needed to be succesful on the job market. I think top-up fees will make it even harded for students to gain the relevant experience in the field to be able to join the circus after they graduate.

I think the reason for a lack of interest or 'apathy' by the new generation of archaeologists in the issues hat are frequently discussed in thi forum has to be sought in the fact that few students come into contact with commercial field archaeology during their time at uni. Some, like me, were lucky to work for units during my summer holidays and be paid, but only because I had previous experience. Many others, however, are perhaps not even aware where to look for excavation experience or can't get a job with a unit in the first place. Therefore, many people will probably be shocked to learn what the commercial world looks like, because they didn't expect what is coming their way. What people see of archaeology in lectur are mainly pritty pictures of prepared sites, plans and artefacts, but rarely do they see diggers with cold hand and feet being chased by mechanical excavators in December on a muddy field in the middle of nowhere.
Maybe universities should work harded to ensure that courses with a practical component contain work placements with units?
Would units have time, the will and resources to do such placements on a large scale is another question...?

Over to you...

[mercenary]

quote:I would be surprised if the rises in pay were directly related to student debts of new graduates. If that was the case how much do the recent pay rises actually help if you are in 13-15.000 debts from your studies already? Sounds like this may be just an inflation issue?

I think they may be related, but indirectly. Fewer grads due to increasing fees/debts leads to increased market value for the few entering the profession, leads to (eventually) higher wages.

There is absolutely no way that employers are going to increase wages out of sympathy for student debts. The market is much more brutal than that.B)

[mercenary]

I'm not actually sure that it is in the interests of the universities to portray the profession accurately. A lot of prospective students would be put off, and the arch departments revenue would decline. (Which I think is already happening) Much better to put on rose tinted glasses and tell arch students that they will be running excavations when they graduate.

[i_love_rocks]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

I'm not actually sure that it is in the interests of the universities to portray the profession accurately. A lot of prospective students would be put off, and the arch departments revenue would decline. (Which I think is already happening) Much better to put on rose tinted glasses and tell arch students that they will be running excavations when they graduate.

I remember one of my Profs asking in a class once who wanted to actually go into professional archaeology. When c. 2/3 of the class raised their hands he laughed loudly and wished all of us 'good luck with finding long-term employment'.

I think that you have a point that many departments are playing the popular archaeology card. I guess that their position is probably a double-edged sword. Either tell tales about the profession and grab the dosh or tell the truth and risk closure. I can't tell which is the better.
I am sure that many students do perfeclty well-now that their job prospects in professional archaeology are slim when they start their degree, but nevertheles associate the work with a more pleasent (sunny?) experience.

[Post-Med Potterer]

Mercenary wrote...

quote:I don't think it is a coincidence that a number of arch departments are now closing

Actually the reason is more to do with point-scoring in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). This takes place every seven years and produces a mad fury of academic job-swapping. If the department doesn't get the 4 or 5 rating most universities require (the rating affects the amount of funding from central government), it will then be merged with other departments to create a 'cluster' with more hope of attracting the 5 rating.

This has happened a lot in the last few years. The last RAE was 2001, the next one is 2007, so a lot of mergers/closurs are taking place at the moment.

Sometimes a department is merged with other artsy social sciences (history or classics) sometimes with the artsy end of the earth sciences (eg. geography).