4th September 2012, 04:09 PM
Unit of One is right - if degrees are intending to churn out 'archaeologists' (in the Unit sense of the word) then they are largely unfit for purpose. If that is their intention Unit is right again in that we could get rid of 90% of the university departments - there is clearly a supply and demand issue between the number of graduates getting archaeology degrees and the number of archaeologists needed in the profession. That of course assumes that all archaeology students want to be 'archaeologists' and this is clearly not the case.
Again I think Unit is right- a couple of weeks digging on a sanitised university research dig and a couple of hours "of baysian statistic, geomorpology and how to do genetic sampling as well" are not going to make an 'archaeologist' whatever the graduates coming out at the end may think.
It's not always easy to agree with Unit - but it is perhaps easier knowing that he will likely find a curator agreeing with him as difficult as it is for me to admit to agreeing to some of his views. }
David Petts however is also correct, in that an archaeology degree isn't presently just about producing 'archaeologists' (again in the Unit sense) and there is absolutely nothing wrong that. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with learning for learning's sake or with entrants taking an archaeology degree to learn about the past and become well rounded, educated and skilled (not necessary commercial archaeologically skilled) individuals.
Which I guess takes us back to the central question - should archaeology degrees be for producing technically skilled 'archaeologists' or people who have been educated to a standard that allows them to go on and build and hone their technical skills.
Ultimately I think Monty's comment:
has a lot of truth to it. Recently I've seen a number of job applications come in from graduate archaeologists who have shown no 'drive' to make themselves employable. Their application seems to suggest that they think that because they have a degree in the subject (or a closely related subject) they have not only the skills, but are "very experienced in...", are "exceptionally competent at..." or "have a thorough knowledge of...".
It seems like a long time since I took my undergraduate degree, but even then I was under no illusion that taking an archaeology degree would make me an 'archaeologist'. I was also under no illusion that I'd be able to come out of university with commercially useful practical archaeological skills unless I put some effort in myself. I knew I wanted to go into field archaeology (although I've subsequently moved into a curatorial position) and I knew that a degree wasn't enough. That's why I put the effort into getting as much practical experience as I could. I didn’t rely on the university's training dig to provide this, but went out of my way to seek 'commercial' experience.
That's why before I went to University I'd already undertaken some office and find's base voluntary work for my local archaeological contractor, gone out of my way to make contact with them and make myself known. When it came to the compulsory fieldwork element of my degree I didn't take the easy option of just sticking my name down on the notice-board list to join the university's training dig - I went out and sought a placement with a commercial company (much to my lecturers bemusement), I also went back to the local unit I'd previously volunteered with and was lucky to secure some intermittent (sometimes paid, sometimes unpaid) commercial experience in holiday periods and subsequently some paid work in the following holidays. Yes I was probably being paid a pittance and some might say I was being 'exploited', but I knew I needed to get this type of experience and I was exceptionally grateful (and perhaps a little bit lucky - but luck has to be made) to get commercial experience whilst at university. I was also very grateful to have the opportunity to work alongside some exceptional field archaeologists who recognised that I wanted to be there and wanted to learn practical skills and that they took the time to share their knowledge with me.
I hope the effort that I put in made me more employable once I'd graduated and I certainly picked up some digging work much quicker than contemporaries who'd only decided to do field archaeology to give it a go until something better came along.
What I'm trying to say - in a very rambling way - is that training isn't just about university vs commercial, but also about prospective field archaeologists showing some drive and determination to seek that training themselves. However we structure the training and whoever provides it, it needs to go beyond drip feeding. If you want to be good at any skill - and field archaeology is a skill - you need to put some effort in - as Roy Castle used to say - "dedications what you need"
Again I think Unit is right- a couple of weeks digging on a sanitised university research dig and a couple of hours "of baysian statistic, geomorpology and how to do genetic sampling as well" are not going to make an 'archaeologist' whatever the graduates coming out at the end may think.
It's not always easy to agree with Unit - but it is perhaps easier knowing that he will likely find a curator agreeing with him as difficult as it is for me to admit to agreeing to some of his views. }
David Petts however is also correct, in that an archaeology degree isn't presently just about producing 'archaeologists' (again in the Unit sense) and there is absolutely nothing wrong that. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with learning for learning's sake or with entrants taking an archaeology degree to learn about the past and become well rounded, educated and skilled (not necessary commercial archaeologically skilled) individuals.
Which I guess takes us back to the central question - should archaeology degrees be for producing technically skilled 'archaeologists' or people who have been educated to a standard that allows them to go on and build and hone their technical skills.
Ultimately I think Monty's comment:
monty Wrote:If only archaeology undergraduates knew what they were letting themselves in for........................
has a lot of truth to it. Recently I've seen a number of job applications come in from graduate archaeologists who have shown no 'drive' to make themselves employable. Their application seems to suggest that they think that because they have a degree in the subject (or a closely related subject) they have not only the skills, but are "very experienced in...", are "exceptionally competent at..." or "have a thorough knowledge of...".
It seems like a long time since I took my undergraduate degree, but even then I was under no illusion that taking an archaeology degree would make me an 'archaeologist'. I was also under no illusion that I'd be able to come out of university with commercially useful practical archaeological skills unless I put some effort in myself. I knew I wanted to go into field archaeology (although I've subsequently moved into a curatorial position) and I knew that a degree wasn't enough. That's why I put the effort into getting as much practical experience as I could. I didn’t rely on the university's training dig to provide this, but went out of my way to seek 'commercial' experience.
That's why before I went to University I'd already undertaken some office and find's base voluntary work for my local archaeological contractor, gone out of my way to make contact with them and make myself known. When it came to the compulsory fieldwork element of my degree I didn't take the easy option of just sticking my name down on the notice-board list to join the university's training dig - I went out and sought a placement with a commercial company (much to my lecturers bemusement), I also went back to the local unit I'd previously volunteered with and was lucky to secure some intermittent (sometimes paid, sometimes unpaid) commercial experience in holiday periods and subsequently some paid work in the following holidays. Yes I was probably being paid a pittance and some might say I was being 'exploited', but I knew I needed to get this type of experience and I was exceptionally grateful (and perhaps a little bit lucky - but luck has to be made) to get commercial experience whilst at university. I was also very grateful to have the opportunity to work alongside some exceptional field archaeologists who recognised that I wanted to be there and wanted to learn practical skills and that they took the time to share their knowledge with me.
I hope the effort that I put in made me more employable once I'd graduated and I certainly picked up some digging work much quicker than contemporaries who'd only decided to do field archaeology to give it a go until something better came along.
What I'm trying to say - in a very rambling way - is that training isn't just about university vs commercial, but also about prospective field archaeologists showing some drive and determination to seek that training themselves. However we structure the training and whoever provides it, it needs to go beyond drip feeding. If you want to be good at any skill - and field archaeology is a skill - you need to put some effort in - as Roy Castle used to say - "dedications what you need"