General Rant!

[Odinn]

That's only the case if you accept the premise that the sole purpose of an archaeology degree is to equip people for a career in field archaeology

I disagree. It is not specifically to do with making the degree training for commercial archaeology but rather to do with how the students develop their thought processes and understand the limitations of data-gathering techniques and interpretation of that same data. Teaching the students about the commercial world and how the data is recovered under those circumstances is a part of archaeology. Without it the degree does not cover archaeology properly because the students do not learn all the ways that data is recovered. Therefore they do not have a context for critically assessing the data and interpreting it, which must surely impede their ability to develop a suitable level of critical thinking. That self-same critical thinking is one of the most important skills that a humanities graduate can develop and bring into society.

University degree courses have to meet certain academic standards, they're not vocational training centres designed to meet the employment needs of commercial archaeological contractors.

I never said they were. I merely pointed out that I believe more information about commercial archaeology would round out the degree properly.

Arguably, the fault lies with successive governments pushing the idea that as many people as possible should go to university, with the consequent reduction in the value of a degree (but not the cost of obtaining one). There's still an expectation that a degree equals greater earning potential or at least ensures that you'll be able to walk straight into a job. This may have been the case when only a small minority of people attended university, but is certainly not true now, when almost every candidate for each archaeology job will have one. There's also the question of whether it's desirable for a university education to be viewed solely in terms of the possible financial value gained by enabling you to get a better-paid job - that may be an outcome, but what about the value of education for its own sake?

Can't disagree with this. The over-emphasis on the financial gains to be made by having a degree is pure political flim-flammery and completely ignores all the benefits that society can have by having a well-educated populace. Of course, governments don't like that sort of populace because it can make them harder to fool or lead. As for the diminshed value of a degree, well, I am really feeling that. I did my first degree back when less than 2% of the country went to university and I got a grant to do so. I felt I had to return to university to keep myself competitive in the market place because so many more people now have Bachelors degrees.

And then there's the question of whether a degree is really necessary to work in commercial fieldwork. Some of the finest field archaeologists I've ever worked with didn't have degrees, but had simply obtained a wide range of skills by actually doing the job. If contractors feel that degree courses aren't training field staff in the field skills they need, what's to stop them doing it themselves? I know that this has been discussed before, but in terms of those wishing to work in the commercial sector of field archaeology, there should perhaps be an alternative route into the profession.

Agreed.

While I wouldn't want to deny anyone who wants it the chance to attend university, starting your working life with debts of ?27,000 or more in a sector where the average salary is well below ?20,000 may not be particularly appealing.

The prospect of that level of debt seems to be discouraging the children of my friends. I wonder if it will lead to a diminution of the university sector in the long run.