3rd September 2012, 12:09 PM
Given what Potgeek & Kevin etc are suggesting, are we at the true nub of the matter? To wit - should folks even need a degree to go digging? We seem to have followed the society-wide trend of assuming we need uni degrees for everything, because it's "elitist" to suggest otherwise. I agree that a practical fieldschool would be very useful to commercial units that want skilled staff, but it will cost somebody some money. If would-be diggers take such courses, can they dispense with the three-year UG degree that doesn't teach field skills? After all, the current crisis is in part because we've run to the end of career for all those MSC/YTS veterans who were given free dig training by the Gov't to get them off the dole in the 1980s. Most of them had no uni degrees, and the process turned out some crackin' diggers, supervisors, and more lofty types.
Now I'm not saying uni degrees are not worth having, but we need to see that there are two very separate ideas here - getting general theory knowledge about the past and getting practical field skills. Both are valid for certain types of career, but not identical or indeed interchangeable. If the unis want to keep on as they are, then they must accept (and advertise!) that their courses are aimed at researchers rather than field staff, and we need to develop a practical alternative for turning out diggers. Maybe you DON'T need a degree for everything...
Now I'm not saying uni degrees are not worth having, but we need to see that there are two very separate ideas here - getting general theory knowledge about the past and getting practical field skills. Both are valid for certain types of career, but not identical or indeed interchangeable. If the unis want to keep on as they are, then they must accept (and advertise!) that their courses are aimed at researchers rather than field staff, and we need to develop a practical alternative for turning out diggers. Maybe you DON'T need a degree for everything...