6th September 2005, 09:56 PM
We've had this discussion before - but here's my pennyworth anyway.
I'm a graduate, and I think that my degree has been hugely useful in my professional life.
On the other hand, I didn't learn to dig at uni. I started 2 years before uni and dug as a volunteer every summer from then until after uni, when I started to get paid.
The two strands complement each other beautifully, and I don't think anyone in archaeology should get into any level of responsibility (whether on the contracting, curating or consulting side) without both.
However, if someone likes to dig and doesn't want to rise in the profession above, say, site superivisor, then I would say the digging experience is more important than a degree. In the unlikely event that I was recruiting for a dig again and I had a choice between an experienced digger with no degree and a graduate with no experience, and I couldn't take both, then I'd pick the digger.
1man1desk
I'm a graduate, and I think that my degree has been hugely useful in my professional life.
On the other hand, I didn't learn to dig at uni. I started 2 years before uni and dug as a volunteer every summer from then until after uni, when I started to get paid.
The two strands complement each other beautifully, and I don't think anyone in archaeology should get into any level of responsibility (whether on the contracting, curating or consulting side) without both.
However, if someone likes to dig and doesn't want to rise in the profession above, say, site superivisor, then I would say the digging experience is more important than a degree. In the unlikely event that I was recruiting for a dig again and I had a choice between an experienced digger with no degree and a graduate with no experience, and I couldn't take both, then I'd pick the digger.
1man1desk