31st August 2012, 07:33 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:You will not like the answer on the grounds that this is probably where you came from.
Take archaeology out of the humanities. Dont let the twats in in the first place. Its the humanity twats that are the bread and butter jokes of archaeology. What A levels do you accept for your courses. The closest that I would accept is geography and only then because I would be interested in their interest in physical geology.
After we have got rid of the humanities we can then start pointing out a lot of the archaeology BSc courses are not.
OK- fair enough- but why? In your experience are people with Science A levels better diggers than those with humanities A levels? Does doing a humanities A level preclude someone from having a technical aptitude in digging? Does someone with an A level in say Biology make a better small finds specialist than someone with an A level in French? Is someone with an A level in Geology going to be able to be able to carry out a better Desk Based Assessment than someone with an A level history?
My next question then is ''who does the training?" -we've already established that you don't believe in University field units- so that means the training won't be provided by people who have regular on the job experience of commercial archaeology? So who does do it?
I'm also curious as to how you see research fitting in.. You've made it very clear that the low margins in commercial archaeology are a real problem- so presumably there is very little time for serious research to be carried out in that context. Is there room in your vision of the university for researchers - if so, what is their purpose, do they teach this material to the undergraduates? How does knowledge move forward?
ps: loving your whole Morrisey of BAJR schtick