20th June 2010, 09:08 AM
The problem with the idea of fewer graduates is that it would require a complete rethink of how higher education is currently financed. Since HE is now operating under a fully free market system more students = more money for departments.
Post-graduate courses in particular are the money making machine for departments, especially because foreign, non-EU students, who already pay ?10k or more per year in fees, come here to get one.
There are three principal sources of income for departments: fees, HEFCE contributions and research grant overheads (there is consultancy, too, but the income usually is negligible).
If you have fewer students you loose income from fees and your HEFCE grant will go down. Consequently, you have to recuce costs, which means staff cuts, library budget cuts etc.
There are plenty of people who study archaeology because they just have an interest. Both young people who just want any degree to then go on and take up a graduate post in a company, and people who have found their love for the subject at a later point in life and are happy to pay for the opportunity to learn about the past. You can't deny these people the opportunity to study it. More importantly, if departments wouldn't let these people in and would just concentrate on people who actually want to work in archaeology and who can reasonably be expected to find jobs in archaeology, you can be assured that out of the xisting departments, we'd very quickly find about less than ten left in the country. How many people would loose their jobs as a result of that?
I'm not saying that fewer 'bums on seats' and increased quality wouldn't be better. But, as long as HE is operating under the free market system, in which profit and not education/ research counts, this just isn't going to change.
Unless university education and research is once again seen as something to improve peoples lives, advance society and increase citizens knowledge, rather than as an adjunct to the 'knowledge economy', we're going to continue to have
too many grads, poor quality and a perpetual drive for efficiency.
What perplexes me about HE in the UK are the constant stereotypes and bickering against students and academics. There's hardly a week during which the press doesn't take a swipe against either students or lecturers.
Students are often described as lazy and just interested in drinking and partying, while academics are constantly described as sitting in the ivory tower and not being in touch with the 'real world' (whatever that is anyway).
People who say have either forgotten the all-nighters many students have to pull to get essays in while working now often also working part time to subsidize their meagre loans.
Academics in many cases work 60+ hours/ week, because if it isn't research, its teaching and marking, and if it isn't teaching its admin.
Yes, academia comes with many perks, but short working weeks isn't one of them.
Way to go Britain, you used to have a world class university system, marvel of the world, but its being f***** up because of stereotyping, bickering, and because it is run like a profit-making enterprise.
And, this extends to archaeolgoy all too often. Constantly these battles between commercial archaeologists versus academic archaeologists. Time to wake up, folks. We need each other, perhaps more than ever.
If one goes down, the other will go eventually go down with it, because what's at the heart of it is a disregard for archaeological heritage and history. With the spending cuts coming it will get bad, really, really bad - across the board.
As for the German system: I've worked with many brilliant Grabungstechniker, and its great to see that there is now even a university level dedicated course, too, as well as the further education route.
But, unfortunately, all too often Grabungstechniker are treated as second class archaeologists by those who have gone through the university system. This is a structural in as much as an ideological problem.
In the German employment situation - where much fo the archaeology is run by the federal states - you cannot rise above a certain level in public employment unless you have a university degree. Period.
Thus, Grabunsgtechniker are often stuck in a dead end of digging until their physical condition is such that they can't go on anymore.
They're also restricted in what they're allowed to do. They can run digs and do post-ex, but publish or do research? Oh no, Grabunsgtechniker (despite having excavated the same site or similar sites for several years day in and day out)
mustn't do research - not my words, but the general consensus amongst German archaeologists in charge.
The German system has some advantages, but degrees neverthless empower people - be craeful what you wish for.
*Sunday morning rant over*
Post-graduate courses in particular are the money making machine for departments, especially because foreign, non-EU students, who already pay ?10k or more per year in fees, come here to get one.
There are three principal sources of income for departments: fees, HEFCE contributions and research grant overheads (there is consultancy, too, but the income usually is negligible).
If you have fewer students you loose income from fees and your HEFCE grant will go down. Consequently, you have to recuce costs, which means staff cuts, library budget cuts etc.
There are plenty of people who study archaeology because they just have an interest. Both young people who just want any degree to then go on and take up a graduate post in a company, and people who have found their love for the subject at a later point in life and are happy to pay for the opportunity to learn about the past. You can't deny these people the opportunity to study it. More importantly, if departments wouldn't let these people in and would just concentrate on people who actually want to work in archaeology and who can reasonably be expected to find jobs in archaeology, you can be assured that out of the xisting departments, we'd very quickly find about less than ten left in the country. How many people would loose their jobs as a result of that?
I'm not saying that fewer 'bums on seats' and increased quality wouldn't be better. But, as long as HE is operating under the free market system, in which profit and not education/ research counts, this just isn't going to change.
Unless university education and research is once again seen as something to improve peoples lives, advance society and increase citizens knowledge, rather than as an adjunct to the 'knowledge economy', we're going to continue to have
too many grads, poor quality and a perpetual drive for efficiency.
What perplexes me about HE in the UK are the constant stereotypes and bickering against students and academics. There's hardly a week during which the press doesn't take a swipe against either students or lecturers.
Students are often described as lazy and just interested in drinking and partying, while academics are constantly described as sitting in the ivory tower and not being in touch with the 'real world' (whatever that is anyway).
People who say have either forgotten the all-nighters many students have to pull to get essays in while working now often also working part time to subsidize their meagre loans.
Academics in many cases work 60+ hours/ week, because if it isn't research, its teaching and marking, and if it isn't teaching its admin.
Yes, academia comes with many perks, but short working weeks isn't one of them.
Way to go Britain, you used to have a world class university system, marvel of the world, but its being f***** up because of stereotyping, bickering, and because it is run like a profit-making enterprise.
And, this extends to archaeolgoy all too often. Constantly these battles between commercial archaeologists versus academic archaeologists. Time to wake up, folks. We need each other, perhaps more than ever.
If one goes down, the other will go eventually go down with it, because what's at the heart of it is a disregard for archaeological heritage and history. With the spending cuts coming it will get bad, really, really bad - across the board.
As for the German system: I've worked with many brilliant Grabungstechniker, and its great to see that there is now even a university level dedicated course, too, as well as the further education route.
But, unfortunately, all too often Grabungstechniker are treated as second class archaeologists by those who have gone through the university system. This is a structural in as much as an ideological problem.
In the German employment situation - where much fo the archaeology is run by the federal states - you cannot rise above a certain level in public employment unless you have a university degree. Period.
Thus, Grabunsgtechniker are often stuck in a dead end of digging until their physical condition is such that they can't go on anymore.
They're also restricted in what they're allowed to do. They can run digs and do post-ex, but publish or do research? Oh no, Grabunsgtechniker (despite having excavated the same site or similar sites for several years day in and day out)
mustn't do research - not my words, but the general consensus amongst German archaeologists in charge.
The German system has some advantages, but degrees neverthless empower people - be craeful what you wish for.
*Sunday morning rant over*