27th June 2011, 09:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 27th June 2011, 09:41 AM by Marcus Brody.)
Odinn Wrote: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.
Ah, I think we may have been talking at cross purposes on this aspect, then. However, I'd contend that when a project officer on a commercial site moans that recent graduates aren't equipped with the skills to work in the sector, he or she is more likely to mean that they can't dig or record at the required speed or to the necessary standard, or that they don't know how to set up a level or survey, rather than that their thought process or critical faculties aren't up to gathering or interpreting the data. As you say, critical thinking is one of the main values of all humanities degrees, not just archaeology, and is applicable outside the field of commercial contracting. Obviously, site skills of this type take time to acquire, so my statement that it's not the role of universities to train people to work in commercial archaeology should be viewed in that light - skills like these are best developed through practical application rather than in the lecture theatre. I agree with you that universities should teach students about the commercial sector, in that it's a part of archaeology that some may work in, but I don't think that courses should be geared narrowly towards churning out staff solely equipped to working in that sector.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum