28th November 2008, 02:56 PM
Of course not every archaeologist is, or has to be, a commercial digger and I'm not convinced that it's the uni's job to churn out trained diggers for the units. That's the principle, which of ocurse breaks down on the point that the huge majority of archaeologists are indeed field archies in the commercial sector (correct? - from memory from P the P). But an academic background is I believe important - or do we go down the route of having "excavation technicians"?
Archaeology's problem (well one of them) is that it falls between two stalls of acedemia and practicality. This certainly applies to other fields - architecture, medicine etc - but perhaps not with the extremes so far apart.
The Bradford solution is an excellent one, where undergards MAY take a placement year out between the 2nd and 3rd years to gain experience. The big drawback of course is finding enough placements: if every uni did it, where would they all go? Even at Bradford a large number of students spend at least part of the placement in the uni itself.
I would however agree that the practical component at most unis is woefully inadequate, both in quality and quantity.
Archaeology's problem (well one of them) is that it falls between two stalls of acedemia and practicality. This certainly applies to other fields - architecture, medicine etc - but perhaps not with the extremes so far apart.
The Bradford solution is an excellent one, where undergards MAY take a placement year out between the 2nd and 3rd years to gain experience. The big drawback of course is finding enough placements: if every uni did it, where would they all go? Even at Bradford a large number of students spend at least part of the placement in the uni itself.
I would however agree that the practical component at most unis is woefully inadequate, both in quality and quantity.