23rd October 2008, 06:17 PM
A few points:
I_love_rocks, universities need more people like you: )
Fieldwork is becoming prohibitively expensive for many, which is why universities have drastically cut back. I still think that everybody ought to have the opportunity to go on at least one 4 week field school, not in the least because there is not the same time-pressure as in commercial archaeology to learn words like mattock, shovel and spade. (It scares me when people turn up on site lacking these words in their native tongue.) It is also a good time to find out whether you like working outdoors.
I realise that lots of people who study archaeology donât wish to pursue career in fieldwork. That is why I was vague about internships, they could easily be with museums, conservators, laboratories and similar establishments. That is also why I think that the final year internship should not be compulsory, but highly encouraged in those who wish to stay in archaeology. By final year they know who they are.
Mr Hosty, a 4 week internship strikes me as too short for the trainee to be useful to the placement host. For the idea to work there has to be a direct benefit for the âemployer.â Therefore, I would favour a whole term in the final year (English or Scottish system). Like teacher training, this should not be an additional cost born by the student.
Before graduating every student ought to know the rudiments of excavation even if only taught out of a book as a compulsory week-long course and site visit. If I am being pedantic it is because I have come to realise that some artefact specialists who are very good at what they do, have no clue how the object in question ended up on their desk. That canât be good.
As to how newbies are treatedâ¦. I find that one has to prove oneself every time one comes to a new unit. Since I have already been nice about the IfA today I shall continue in the same vein (and then go lie down in a darkened room). I really wish their coach-mentoring programme would be more widely adopted. It really costs nothing and despite the cheesey American term really does help encourage communication and figuring out what people know.
I get annoyed with the âyears servedâ argument. The âI should be a supervisor because Iâve worked here two months longer,â cry. People should be rewarded for merit. Iâve argued for years for a senior site assistant grade for the technically proficient who for whatever reason do not suit organising other people. Driving out the technically proficient really hurts the profession. (Several grades of site assistant would be best, the top somewhere equivalent to junior PO in pay and responsibilities for self, eg also deals with contractors and equipment hire, writes reports.)
Windbag, I love the critical rigour of British academia, but while the balance of teaching is far against practical knowledge students have all but lost the art of learning by observation and example and critic sometimes seems unthinkingly reflexive.
ed for syntactical errors
I_love_rocks, universities need more people like you: )
Fieldwork is becoming prohibitively expensive for many, which is why universities have drastically cut back. I still think that everybody ought to have the opportunity to go on at least one 4 week field school, not in the least because there is not the same time-pressure as in commercial archaeology to learn words like mattock, shovel and spade. (It scares me when people turn up on site lacking these words in their native tongue.) It is also a good time to find out whether you like working outdoors.
I realise that lots of people who study archaeology donât wish to pursue career in fieldwork. That is why I was vague about internships, they could easily be with museums, conservators, laboratories and similar establishments. That is also why I think that the final year internship should not be compulsory, but highly encouraged in those who wish to stay in archaeology. By final year they know who they are.
Mr Hosty, a 4 week internship strikes me as too short for the trainee to be useful to the placement host. For the idea to work there has to be a direct benefit for the âemployer.â Therefore, I would favour a whole term in the final year (English or Scottish system). Like teacher training, this should not be an additional cost born by the student.
Before graduating every student ought to know the rudiments of excavation even if only taught out of a book as a compulsory week-long course and site visit. If I am being pedantic it is because I have come to realise that some artefact specialists who are very good at what they do, have no clue how the object in question ended up on their desk. That canât be good.
As to how newbies are treatedâ¦. I find that one has to prove oneself every time one comes to a new unit. Since I have already been nice about the IfA today I shall continue in the same vein (and then go lie down in a darkened room). I really wish their coach-mentoring programme would be more widely adopted. It really costs nothing and despite the cheesey American term really does help encourage communication and figuring out what people know.
I get annoyed with the âyears servedâ argument. The âI should be a supervisor because Iâve worked here two months longer,â cry. People should be rewarded for merit. Iâve argued for years for a senior site assistant grade for the technically proficient who for whatever reason do not suit organising other people. Driving out the technically proficient really hurts the profession. (Several grades of site assistant would be best, the top somewhere equivalent to junior PO in pay and responsibilities for self, eg also deals with contractors and equipment hire, writes reports.)
Windbag, I love the critical rigour of British academia, but while the balance of teaching is far against practical knowledge students have all but lost the art of learning by observation and example and critic sometimes seems unthinkingly reflexive.
ed for syntactical errors