20th March 2009, 02:49 PM
Too high a standard seems like playing safe with a formula, that meets the grade, when the output required is centred on having the best reputation.
Sort of like drill instruction and indoctrination, with more opportunities made available for institutes to get involved at that level thereby maintaining that level.
But the thing is, if you have such a high reputation, that in itself, will bring more students to study, because as you apply you think either about the output you will have learnt (as an assumption to be equal to the research), or the ability to remain within that institutions' research system.
This seems like a good idea if it becomes really bad economically, but that means all of the possible diversity of intellectual thought will be left in the books, journals and the internet from times gone by.
It almost harks of the self-perpetuation that the economy itself has been working on over the last few years. This I think may be the intellectual manifestation of the same thing.
Poor standards being met could appear as though the institutions are based around teaching, but then if an institution is to survive, it needs students to be taught in a way that the students can and will engage with the material and maybe step up towards further learning.
Would the best result come from institutions, which in fact move up and down the scale as a process of attaining the right balance for everyone?s benefit not purely on the basis standards?
This harks too strongly of the argument for standards within the commercial field practice of archaeology.
I don't think there will be a consensus, because, especially for now, there is too much at risk, or of being lost.
All flexibility and adaptability will revolve around maintaining rigor.
Significance will be flexible by its nature, of what is hot and what is not.
Originality will be based upon the PhD's, which have to be original.
I think it may be worth discussing, as institutional survival may possibly be built upon the exploitation of the resources at hand.
I think it will be important to discuss the notion of what is exploitation and what level of it would be acceptable, or even appropriate?
I merely ask as this makes my hopes for an archaeological future. Not popular, I understand and could even be considered rude, but I would like to hope.
As for student enrolments, I think the entry requirements may need to be tightened up, or become much more orientated at getting a real feel of the students applying, through an increase in the involvement of interviews being used as a major part of selection, rather than being just grades.
Those who know me may recognise my grammatical inconsistency, as a cause for my concern, for undergraduate applicants.
I think this is something of significant worth, to discuss.
txt is
Mike