17th August 2010, 10:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th August 2010, 10:34 PM by trainedchimp.)
I thought that this would produce lively debate, but I should have expected the stream of random abuse and cheap shots from both sides.
There seem to be so many false premises in all of the arguments - the two that strike me are these:
1) Of course university degrees aren't, by and large, good preparation for work as a digger. You really don't need a degree to be able to dig, and in terms of technical skills, an NVQ or an apprenticeship (assuming someone actually offered it) would be much more appropriate and would turn out a more technically capable, if less well-informed workforce. Similarly, a 'field archaeology' master's degree isn't really something that should be expected turn out a good digger - it should really be aimed at supervisor or PO level to allow them to get a decent theoretical underpinning to their work, investigate different methodologies apply that to professional work. Producing a site technician would simply not reach the academic level required, and (as often pointed out) is probably best done outside a university. As for PhDs, I think even academics tend to avoid reading these if at all possible - if they're any good, they'll be out as a book with the benefit of professional editing. You'll also find that the IfA won't dish out MIfA status on the basis of a PhD (or any other academic qualification)- you need to show the management experience and competence to back it up.
2) MIfAs needn't be experts at half-sectioning a post-hole or writing up a site, and as most of them haven't in a while, you shouldn't really be surprised that most are a little wibbly round the edges when they try. Most have done this, as they've come up through digging, but fundamentally, they're managers, who have a track record in setting up, running and completing projects - they're paid to employ people who can do the practical stuff better than they can. Assuming they know better than their staff isn't a trait unique to MIfAs, nor a particularly helpful one in anyone.
The whole profession - in my opinion - seems to be heading inexorably towards a split between 'professionals' (Curators, SPOs, PMs, unit managers, consultants), 'technicians' (diggers and supervisors) and 'academics' (academics and specialists). This is probably anathema to most people who post here (and I think it's been discussed before), because of the way that pretty much everyone one starts(ed) as a digger. However, it seems to be the only way in which chartering individuals has a place - the 'academics' already have a career structure and qualification hierarchy, and the technicians would be better served by unionisation and NVQs or other competence-based vocational qualifications or than by academic qualifications of dubious practical application. Chartering the institute is different, and I must admit I've not though about that.
There seem to be so many false premises in all of the arguments - the two that strike me are these:
1) Of course university degrees aren't, by and large, good preparation for work as a digger. You really don't need a degree to be able to dig, and in terms of technical skills, an NVQ or an apprenticeship (assuming someone actually offered it) would be much more appropriate and would turn out a more technically capable, if less well-informed workforce. Similarly, a 'field archaeology' master's degree isn't really something that should be expected turn out a good digger - it should really be aimed at supervisor or PO level to allow them to get a decent theoretical underpinning to their work, investigate different methodologies apply that to professional work. Producing a site technician would simply not reach the academic level required, and (as often pointed out) is probably best done outside a university. As for PhDs, I think even academics tend to avoid reading these if at all possible - if they're any good, they'll be out as a book with the benefit of professional editing. You'll also find that the IfA won't dish out MIfA status on the basis of a PhD (or any other academic qualification)- you need to show the management experience and competence to back it up.
2) MIfAs needn't be experts at half-sectioning a post-hole or writing up a site, and as most of them haven't in a while, you shouldn't really be surprised that most are a little wibbly round the edges when they try. Most have done this, as they've come up through digging, but fundamentally, they're managers, who have a track record in setting up, running and completing projects - they're paid to employ people who can do the practical stuff better than they can. Assuming they know better than their staff isn't a trait unique to MIfAs, nor a particularly helpful one in anyone.
The whole profession - in my opinion - seems to be heading inexorably towards a split between 'professionals' (Curators, SPOs, PMs, unit managers, consultants), 'technicians' (diggers and supervisors) and 'academics' (academics and specialists). This is probably anathema to most people who post here (and I think it's been discussed before), because of the way that pretty much everyone one starts(ed) as a digger. However, it seems to be the only way in which chartering individuals has a place - the 'academics' already have a career structure and qualification hierarchy, and the technicians would be better served by unionisation and NVQs or other competence-based vocational qualifications or than by academic qualifications of dubious practical application. Chartering the institute is different, and I must admit I've not though about that.