31st August 2012, 11:53 AM
Unitof1 Wrote:Let's get it out straightaway you are teaching archaeological vanity to the vast majority of students who never intended to have anything what so ever to do with commercial archaeology even though you like to suggest that
For the last 25 years or so virtually all the universities have sucked the prperganda of archaeology dry to churn out a very cheap humanities degree (and I mean that as opposed to a science degree).
To compound this educational rip off, which is basically a rip off of anybody wanting to call themselves a professional archaeologist and particularly one working in the so called commercial world the universities have then been in direct and massively subsidised competition with their graduated through their so call commercial units
Yer right you give a monkeys go give them a mark
Not sure what the point you are making is! I *think* you are saying that the purpose of University's should be purely to provide a technical, vocational training for those working in the commercial world- ie. this is basically what David Willetts and the Torys (and to be fair Labour under people like Charles Clarke) argued universities. From that point of view the point of HE is purely to support business. I'm afraid I disagree quite profoundly with that perspective - but that is a bigger philosophical arguement.
Of course, Universities are meant to be much more than that. For a start, there is the rather quaint old fashioned idea that learning about the past (or indeed any aspect of science or the humanities) is inherently of value. I think it is good that there is a cohort of people out there working in many aspects of life (teachers; business people; god help us, even politicians) who have an positive outlook and interest in the past in general and archaeology in particular. Secondly, this is a truism, but archaeology is a hell of a lot more than excavation- I've already mentioned all the finds specialities, other survey techniques etc - plus, of course, the basic details, like chronology, wider social perspectives (I think we've all read grey literature where great fieldwork has been undermined by the basic ability to synthesize and interpret what it all actually means). However, there is no way an UG degree can provide the training to make sure students are ready to take up any of these vocational roles after three years. Finally, there is the other important aspect of what Universities do, research! A lot of really important research work is done in universities by academics and research students.
I think you paint a pretty bleak image of what a university should be - a machine for training commercial fieldarchaeologist- but one that is depressingy well in tune with the current administration and its agenda for Higher Education.
Finally, as Wax pointed out- University field units are definitely not subsidised- quite the opposite!
On a practical note, if archaeology courses were meant to provide purely vocational skills and feed people into the archaelogical jobs market, then we'd need one perhaps two maximum, archaeology departments in the whole UK - (proving c. 75-100 new employees each year).
"Yer right you give a monkeys go give them a mark"
oooh get you!
David