a degree of competence?

[Troll]

It has been said by some that "diggers" really only require a rudimentary understanding of archaeology to do their job. If this is the case, I want my money back and, my debt cancelled for a degree that some suggest is pointless. Conversely, it really is no surprise then that those who float upwards to positions of responsibility despite the fact that they hold only a "rudimentary" understanding make life unbearable for the rest of us and-the archaeology. Lets sort this out once and for all- I believe that a field archaeologist is a specialist professional and as such, needs a degree and-recognition rather than being seen as rubbish disposal workers. Do you grown ups want a qualified professional workforce or, teams of volunteers that require nothing but grunt unless they desire the dizzy heights you have obtained? Degree or no degree?

[destroyer]

Hmmm, can i say both?

Yes in some ways it would be great to have a professionally qualified digging team, in which case we'd need to start paying our diggers somewhere around 20k, but it isnt necessary and anyway most graduates seem to be awful diggers.

You can be a professional digger without the degree qualification quite happily - many of my team for instance came out of the msc scheme in the 80's with bugger all in the way of o levels - let alone anything else, and have backgrounds in all sorts of manual jobs, but i'd still call them pro archaeologists.

The average digger, at the bottom of the pile, just needs to have some common sense and the ability to hold a shovel and dig a pit section. Plus have enough brain to recognise a bit of pot, bone or flint when they see it (no need to date or identify it, just recovery), and the ability to ask the PO what to do next if they're not sure.

Generally i like my team to have a mix of graduates and non-graduates - which tends to lead to a nice variety of people on site. I dont want a whole team muttering about the size of their student loans....

[BoneGirl]

I agree that having both types of experienced staff on site are a bonus.

I think the problem usually comes in when some (few but noisey)individuals get about two years of experience then deem themselves to be experts and ready to run sites etc.. ( ok seperate post I guess)
In my experience we are learning all the time on this job.

The problem with graduates is that the universities that produce them have varying ideas about how much field technique and experience they should be providing them with before graduation. Some I have come accross are sadly lacking in this area.

[destroyer]

Actually i think the issue of unis providing sufficent experience is largely irrelevant. If you want to be a field archaeologist after graduation then you should be spending the 22 weeks a year holiday going out and getting as much training and experience, whether voluntary or, if youre lucky, paid as you can.

If you swan proudly out with your 2.1 and only 6 weeks uni digging over 3 years then thats your problem when no-one gives you any work, in favour of the few who spent their summers pot washing instead of lying on a beach in ibiza.

[1man1desk]

We've had this discussion before - but here's my pennyworth anyway.

I'm a graduate, and I think that my degree has been hugely useful in my professional life.

On the other hand, I didn't learn to dig at uni. I started 2 years before uni and dug as a volunteer every summer from then until after uni, when I started to get paid.

The two strands complement each other beautifully, and I don't think anyone in archaeology should get into any level of responsibility (whether on the contracting, curating or consulting side) without both.

However, if someone likes to dig and doesn't want to rise in the profession above, say, site superivisor, then I would say the digging experience is more important than a degree. In the unlikely event that I was recruiting for a dig again and I had a choice between an experienced digger with no degree and a graduate with no experience, and I couldn't take both, then I'd pick the digger.

1man1desk

[deepdigger]

Err! actually it's people like you lot that are delibretly holding wages at an artificially low level just to keep costs down!
If you want people who just dig the hole and sift through the mud for finds then go and recruit brain dead morons off the dole, you don't of course want anyone with any brains because it might take the spotlight off you, and your ilk!
Destroyer
You don't deserve archaeologists mate, in fact i think you may have picked the right user name as you are destroying British archaeology for the sake of your own selfish career!

deep

[eggbasket]

I'm with destroyer on this one. Some of the best diggers I have ever met came to it from the MSC scheme. Many went on to do degrees in archaeology, but that is not where they started. I do not see a degree as essential to excavate sites. Rather, enthusiasm, graft and a bit of common sense is more important. A degree becomes important when you rise through the ranks, as has previously been stated on other threads.

There have been comparisons with engineering on other threads. One difference between archaeology and engineering is that engineering is a vocational degree that is aimed at getting the graduate into the wider world, and provides them with a year's experience in the industry. Most archaeology degrees are academic and not vocational, so there can really be little comparison there as it is not comparing like with like. If ever all archaeology degrees become vocational then I may be inclined to agree that a degree in archaeology should be the entry point. On the other hand, as DrPeterWardle pointed out, there are many eminent archaeologists who do not / did not have degrees in archaeology, so what does that tell you about the nature of the work? And where would archaeology be without these people, who, by some people's lights, should never have been allowed to work in archaeology in the first place?

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by destroyer

Actually i think the issue of unis providing sufficent experience is largely irrelevant. If you want to be a field archaeologist after graduation then you should be spending the 22 weeks a year holiday going out and getting as much training and experience, whether voluntary or, if youre lucky, paid as you can.

Thinking about it, this is the area where I disagree with destroyer. In my opinion, you should not have to volunteer just to get the experience you need and I think this is a bad hangover from the bad old days when archaeology was not professional. Archaeologists are professionals (degree or not). Therefore, it seems to me that they should be trained and paid while they train. It might only be a training wage but I do think that it is disgusting that archaeologists should have to volunteer to get the experience they need. How many other professions rely upon people gaining their experience as volunteers first?

On another point: Why is a degree necessary for a site assistant / digger? What will that degree teach them that they need to know when digging a site?

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[mercenary]

quote:On another point: Why is a degree necessary for a site assistant / digger? What will that degree teach them that they need to know when digging a site?

To use their brain while doing it! Just because UK uni's don't prepare students very well for digging jobs does not mean that diggers shouldn't ideally have degrees.

I'm with deep on this one. These old fashioned attitudes about divisions of labour on a site are long overdue for extinction. The best field teams I've been a part of have interchangeable roles, and almost no specialization. That means that every team member can do everything on site including think about the site with respect to post-ex, or at least be working at learning the roles. (Degree or no degree)

Those who want to dig ditch sections and not think are as unwelcome as those who want to swan about and supervise without getting their hands or chino's dirty!}

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by deepdigger

go and recruit brain dead morons off the dole

Err? Ever been on the dole yourself? I presume that you are not refering to the (in your opinion) 'brain dead morons' who were dragged off the dole to take part in the MSC scheme in the 80s. Some probably werent the sharpest tools in the box, or even particularlly interested in archaeology, but many of those who were have gone on to become some of the best archaeologists I've worked with.

As far as degrees go, like Destroyer, I think that a degree has its uses but shouldn't be seen as essential for field archaeology. After all, most people learn sweet f.a. about field practice at university. I speak from years of experience as a supervisor, dealing with graduates who didn't know how to draw sections but who knew better than I did about where to put them.