24th July 2012, 01:55 PM
Gilraen Wrote:Hi Chiz,
You say that 'universities certainly aren't going to be training job-ready professional archaeologists and the profession ought to get used to this and step up to the plate'.
Hi, I'm not saying this is the case, the universities and ATF are saying it; the courses just aren't financially viable, so won't happen, especially now. Universities are now essentially private education and will only give courses that will pay their own way. Vocational archaeology degrees won't. My point is that universities must stop pretending they prepare you for the profession, be honest about their courses and what they do prepare students for, and don't pretend that students will be site ready Diggers at the end of the degree.
Jack, the industry hasn't accepted this though, that's the remaining problem! A few parts of the industry have 'got' the training need (notably public sector quangos like EH), but the contracting side is largely still in denial from what I see out on site. They may 'think' that they provide ad hoc training on site, but there is usually minimal or no support for those put in the position of being trainers, and there is no time given to provide training. Training is usually only for the selected 'prospects' rather than for the masses. That is what needs to change: placing training/learning/enquiry within the working week as a key part of what we do, there are simple ways of embedding the training, and they needn't cost a lot, and will improve quality of work and staff. But it needs a top-down commitment to embed training to make it be anything more than a few individuals doing what they can. The culture of deskilled drop-down box ticking technicians whacking out sections and recording/making it up after they've dug it needs to stop and we need to start addressing poor methodologies and poor execution and stop accepting shoddy work.
It is a cultural change that is needed to address all these issues around training, on all levels, and by all levels.
Dinosaur, unfortunately correctly cross-referencing is often the least of the problems, some form of elementary discussion and thought out interpretation would be good! You are correct that many Diggers and supervisors don't understand that they are doing the job badly, many have never known any other way. It can be the same with other staff on site as well though, such as surveyors, where there is a lack of understanding of the basics, and of what needs to be recorded and what is being missed by deferring to using new technology without using understanding.
To some extent the alleged decline of the 'volly' tradition (that I started on) for pre-undergrads is only part of the problem. I would say there are still opportunities to go and work on digs before uni, although these may cost money where once they were free. And anyone contemplating a career in field archaeology who is able to afford a gap year should try and get at least as much digging in as travelling -or combine both- over that year. The key issue seems to be that undergrads can no longer afford to work on digs through their holidays, they can't afford to work on site for say 6 months over their degree and to consolidate their basic skills and experience (and attitude?). That learning of the basics is now shunted into their first job (if they ever get one), and its up to the commercial contractors to either pay enough to keep established and experienced staff, or set aside the time and resources to train, mentor and develop new entrants.