28th November 2008, 01:56 PM
My reply on Facebook was :
Absolutely Don, the concepts are indeed defined - where education AND training are different aspects of the 'learning process' -
In answer to a couple of points you make,
> Who should provide training in archaeology?
The debate is now not who, but how... with companies aware that without trained graduates, the profession is weaker, and offering apprentice schemes is a potential route...
>The university degree is not designed to train a fully-fledged archaeologist.
This might come as a bit of a disappointment to many students... even if you are right ... as one might ask... (for those that take archaeology as a a degree course, and mount up a huge debt in the process) -- if I intend to become an archaeologist... why would I go to University for 3-4 years, if at the end of it, I am actually not actually a fully fledged archaeologist... indeed, I now have to learn (or should I say train) to become one..
Employers may see CPD as part of the responsibility, but a quick look at the adverts still says either a degree OR relevant exp. If - as you suggest - an individual with a degree is not a fully fledged archaeologist... the degree element should not be an either or... as they are not actually prepared for the profession yet. Sadly, and it is sadly, the untrained graduate is put straight out into a commercial world, without the skills (there are a number of notable exceptions) that the companies require.
I do agree that Training and Higher Education are different.. however, they are both Learning... whether through CPD, Lectures, On-site training, Education etc... The worry for those that do want to become archaeologists is that, from what you are saying... at the end of a degree course, they are not yet archaeologists, all they are is graduates .. and they still have to train to become archaeologists.
My argument is that this is not an option in today's climate, where every month I spend in a learning environment , every pound I mount up as debt in that process ... I would want to see a job at the end. By merging Higher Education and apprenticeships, we could equip graduates with a rounded Learning experience, that means they are fully fledged archaeologists.
Just my thoughts, but when listening to recent graduates, and to companies who employ, the skills gap is a great concern, and perhaps we have to think in a different way, where the distinction is blurred, and education AND training are on offer.
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Absolutely Don, the concepts are indeed defined - where education AND training are different aspects of the 'learning process' -
In answer to a couple of points you make,
> Who should provide training in archaeology?
The debate is now not who, but how... with companies aware that without trained graduates, the profession is weaker, and offering apprentice schemes is a potential route...
>The university degree is not designed to train a fully-fledged archaeologist.
This might come as a bit of a disappointment to many students... even if you are right ... as one might ask... (for those that take archaeology as a a degree course, and mount up a huge debt in the process) -- if I intend to become an archaeologist... why would I go to University for 3-4 years, if at the end of it, I am actually not actually a fully fledged archaeologist... indeed, I now have to learn (or should I say train) to become one..
Employers may see CPD as part of the responsibility, but a quick look at the adverts still says either a degree OR relevant exp. If - as you suggest - an individual with a degree is not a fully fledged archaeologist... the degree element should not be an either or... as they are not actually prepared for the profession yet. Sadly, and it is sadly, the untrained graduate is put straight out into a commercial world, without the skills (there are a number of notable exceptions) that the companies require.
I do agree that Training and Higher Education are different.. however, they are both Learning... whether through CPD, Lectures, On-site training, Education etc... The worry for those that do want to become archaeologists is that, from what you are saying... at the end of a degree course, they are not yet archaeologists, all they are is graduates .. and they still have to train to become archaeologists.
My argument is that this is not an option in today's climate, where every month I spend in a learning environment , every pound I mount up as debt in that process ... I would want to see a job at the end. By merging Higher Education and apprenticeships, we could equip graduates with a rounded Learning experience, that means they are fully fledged archaeologists.
Just my thoughts, but when listening to recent graduates, and to companies who employ, the skills gap is a great concern, and perhaps we have to think in a different way, where the distinction is blurred, and education AND training are on offer.
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton