14th May 2009, 09:50 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sith
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BRahn
What are they not learning? They're not learning HOW TO PUT UP THE BUILDING, that is, the equivalent of excavation and recording in archaeology!
Not really. Architects design buildings; Engineers work out how to keep them up, and Builders build them.
And they are all (I presume) quite differently qualified.
If you replace the process of building a building for carrying out an excavation and change 'architect' for 'manager', 'engineer' for 'project officer', and 'builder' for 'site assistant' that is perhaps in some way comparible to archaeology (feel free to point out how it isn't). The major difference? All the people on the archaeological site are, in terms of paper qualifications, exactly the same in most cases. In some cases the assistants will even have higher academic qualifications than the managers. The major distinction is different areas of experience. Does archaeology therefore need more specialist qualifications (HND type etc) or better inter-level training and specific qualifications for different tasks that can be acquired by anyone with a degree? Some of this type of thing is already happening of course, but a more structured approach might be helpful.
Discuss/pull apart.