20th February 2013, 10:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 20th February 2013, 10:58 AM by Carrickavoy.)
I'm not sure the author means that, although that extract is very confusing.
I think there is the implication that students from poorer backgrounds who have worked so hard to get to third level will choose subjects with better employment opportunities once you factor in the growing burden of debt. This will have the knock on effect that universities will 'disinvest' from disciplines not in short-term demand e.g. archaeology which will cause a downward spiral. Until of course places are so limited that the production of diggers falls and then we are in high demand and the profession becomes economically desirable again.
But in the short-term it does suggest archaeology will become an elitist pursuit :-(
I think there is the implication that students from poorer backgrounds who have worked so hard to get to third level will choose subjects with better employment opportunities once you factor in the growing burden of debt. This will have the knock on effect that universities will 'disinvest' from disciplines not in short-term demand e.g. archaeology which will cause a downward spiral. Until of course places are so limited that the production of diggers falls and then we are in high demand and the profession becomes economically desirable again.
But in the short-term it does suggest archaeology will become an elitist pursuit :-(