I have done the taught MA and am currently working on a research degree here. I also did my undergrad in the states so I am in a similar boat. I did some recent research were I looked at the roughly 100 PhD archaeology programs in the states and this is what I have found to be the real differences. Typically, at least, what American school websites say- an MA is about 1.5-2 years in the states. This differs from school to school with some saying you will complete in x time while others are more laid back.
Also most programs allow for a MA without a thesis option so in many cases someone could get their MA without any field work (I know a lot). This is practically that same as a taught degree here as it is roughly three semesters fall, spring, summer(dissertation write-up). For those programs that say get a masters in 1.5 years in the US pretty much the same thing fall, spring, fall.
So really a taught MA is roughly what a MA is in the states- you can do field work for it, I did, but you dont have to.
The real difference comes in the PhD. In the states you would spend the exact same time as an MA in classes 1.5-2 yrs. then spend the next three in research. Most pick up an MA along the way.
In the UK its three years for PhD- 1 in which you get an Mphil (practically useless) 2 turning you research into a PhD. in this option you do not take any classes at all. so unless you did an taught MA you basically skip classes and go straight to research.
Other then these differences its pretty much the same- not everyone here or in the US follows the schedule exactly and the supposed 3 yr PhD here actually takes 5-6 in many cases
As for the whole MSc. I am not sure what you are referring to chances are it depends on how those universities label degrees. For example all of Edinburgh does an MSc but it is exactly the same requirements as an MA at Newcastle or anywhere else.
There are a few exceptions I think UCL has a two year course for one of its masters.
As for comparison plenty of people with UK degrees teach at american schools so quality is not bad. Though a lot of Americans look down on the UK MA because they think its only one year even though it is 3 semesters like at least half of the PhD schools in the US.
On the point that PhD programs should only accept someone with experience NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH most, not all, are looking for academics and hands on training is an after thought because University archaeology is about publishing "theory" not practical work. I know lots of PhD students with only a field school
Now before anyone jumps on me over this YES lots of good archaeologists work in universities and make amazing field archaeologists but I would say there are a lot more archaeologists with very limited field exp. in academia- for better or worse
Also most programs allow for a MA without a thesis option so in many cases someone could get their MA without any field work (I know a lot). This is practically that same as a taught degree here as it is roughly three semesters fall, spring, summer(dissertation write-up). For those programs that say get a masters in 1.5 years in the US pretty much the same thing fall, spring, fall.
So really a taught MA is roughly what a MA is in the states- you can do field work for it, I did, but you dont have to.
The real difference comes in the PhD. In the states you would spend the exact same time as an MA in classes 1.5-2 yrs. then spend the next three in research. Most pick up an MA along the way.
In the UK its three years for PhD- 1 in which you get an Mphil (practically useless) 2 turning you research into a PhD. in this option you do not take any classes at all. so unless you did an taught MA you basically skip classes and go straight to research.
Other then these differences its pretty much the same- not everyone here or in the US follows the schedule exactly and the supposed 3 yr PhD here actually takes 5-6 in many cases
As for the whole MSc. I am not sure what you are referring to chances are it depends on how those universities label degrees. For example all of Edinburgh does an MSc but it is exactly the same requirements as an MA at Newcastle or anywhere else.
There are a few exceptions I think UCL has a two year course for one of its masters.
As for comparison plenty of people with UK degrees teach at american schools so quality is not bad. Though a lot of Americans look down on the UK MA because they think its only one year even though it is 3 semesters like at least half of the PhD schools in the US.
On the point that PhD programs should only accept someone with experience NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH most, not all, are looking for academics and hands on training is an after thought because University archaeology is about publishing "theory" not practical work. I know lots of PhD students with only a field school
Now before anyone jumps on me over this YES lots of good archaeologists work in universities and make amazing field archaeologists but I would say there are a lot more archaeologists with very limited field exp. in academia- for better or worse