a degree of competence?

[eggbasket]

Merc, I disagree that a degree teaches you how to think. Not everyone I have met who has a degree is actually capable of applying the appropriate level of analytical thought to their site work. I do agree that everyone on site should be working towards understanding the whole process and not just the digging side of it. After all, if they understand why they are asked to do certain aspects of the job then they ought to be able to produce better and more useful site records, and if they want to progress through the ranks then it is useful training for that too. For this reason, I have always encouraged all staff to get involved with all aspects of the job, where possible. This has paid off in many cases, but has also been a gross mistake in certain others since said staff proved incapable of relating the different aspects of the job to each other, or were just too lazy to bother ? and these were people with degrees. Of course, if you are right about a degree teaching you to think, then any degree should be a valid entry point, not just an archaeology degree.

There also seems to be an assumption that those without degrees are incapable of thinking and I find this quite offensive. Just because a person does not have a degree does not mean they are stupid. Likewise, possession of a degree does not automatically confer intelligence, common sense and all that is good in the world.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[achingknees]

achingknees

quote:Originally posted by 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

Deep sir, that was a bit of a low swipe. Destroyer's comments were opinion - I see nothing in them that will bring down the edifice of British Archaeology. Deep - not too shallow please

Degrees are increasingly important, but there's still room for others. My fantasy team of 10 archaeologists would certainly include 2 individuals without a degree. One is an excellent site assistant who is quite insistent he wants to only do site based work. The other is now office based and has an enviable depth of academic and practical skills.

[mercenary]

Eggy,

I'm with you on every point. I think I may have got wrongfully implicated in that old saw of an argument about degrees teaching you how to think. Usually employed to suggest English lit grads can do any job because they are inherently superior beings having gone to university, and part and parcel with the view that only the elite should go to uni.
I think that whole argument is horse****.

I merely wanted to suggest that having done a degree may suggest an ability to use a brain, whether or not it is actually employed in the field. And of course this attribute is not limited to degree holders.

I thankfully was not exposed to the failings of UK archaeology departments, and feel I was well prepared for fieldwork by my course(ironically in a country where little fieldwork is actually done by our standards), so have an advantage over otherwise intelligent non archaeology degree holders. I do occasionally work with new grads who got something useful and applicable to fieldwork from their degrees, but they are in the minority.

Cheers,

Merc.

[eggbasket]

I agree that the opportunity to attend university should be afforded to all, although I do find it irksome occasionally because my first degree has become devalued by being less rare and so I felt I had to do a masters and now I feel I have to do the PhD to stay ahead of the game.

Degrees are a benchmark. They indicate a certain standard of education and it is usually assumed that you are an intelligent human being if you have one. When recruiting staff, they are used as an indicator that the applicant has the mental faculties required to undertake the job, but they do not guarantee it. They do not tell you whether the applicant is willing to do the hard physical work required on site, nor do they indicate whether the applicant can actually apply their learning to the fieldwork. Only practical experience will tell you that.

The problem with an all-encompassing attitude that states that all staff should have a degree in archaeology is that those degrees can vary widely according to which modules are taken and which universities were attended. All archaeology degrees are not equal. In theory, people should be able to transfer the techniques and thought processes associated with their chosen modules to other areas, but this is not always the case; they can't think "outside the box". An argument could then also be made for people with degrees in other disciplines being able to apply the analytical techniques they have learned in those disciplines to archaeology and thus creating a more vibrant academic debate (e.g. an Eng Lit graduate! ). After all, archaeological theory feeds off other disciplines (e.g. Hodder's ideas about hermeneutics). So how far do you take it?

I still maintain, as I have stated previously, that people should ideally work in the field for a couple of years before doing their archaeology degree. I think they will get more from it in terms of applying the theoretical knowledge to what they know of the practical fieldwork. Also it ought to weed out those who think that archaeology is a doss degree and only do it so that they can get a degree.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[muddyandcold]

Both have there place! Archaeology by it's very nature is both hands and practical offering opportunities for those without access to univ. On the flip side it is also very theoretical, requiring degree, ma and phd students to come up with endless ever changing theories.

However, the evidence from which they write papers, books and TV deals come from the field. It should be a requirement for ALL academics to spend an annual spell in the field under the quidance of a 'professional digger' (with or without qualifications). This would perhaps raise the prestige of the digger and hopefully the wages [:0].

Some of the best diggers I have ever met have been ex msc placements, ET (remember that one).

oh well, thats my two pennyworth...

A Muddy Digger, dreading winter fieldwork......

[Sith]

If anyone's interested, it's not just archaeologists who are discussing this topic:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?n...834#376822

Sith

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by muddy


However, the evidence from which they write papers, books and TV deals come from the field.

I am not sure that it comes from field units though. Do they not just base all their papers on their own fieldwork? How often do you see an academic browsing through the grey literature? I know a whole bunch of them have taken to using PAS for research but that fieldwork is done by metal-detectorists and not by archaeologists.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[mercenary]

I don't think it's a coincidence that it's the army discussing the same issues. I've always thought that archaeological field projects resemble military operations more than anything else. Many of the old school archaeological "Directors" are our "Officer Class". I'd like to think that in modern archaeology we are well on the way to a situation where all officers are promoted from the ranks.

[eggbasket]

I think the majority of our officers actually are promoted from the ranks. The ones that worry me are the graduates who go straight from a degree into jobs like heritage management and development control without first "serving their time". I don't see how they can have the same "feel" for the archaeology as those that have worked in the field.

Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[mercenary]

I'm coming to the reluctant conclusion that those people are actually in a different profession for us. I'm actually surprised when I meet representatives of those fields who have strong field backgrounds. Heritage Management in particular seems closed to experienced field archs.

If this is the case and their professions are developing independently, then we have to accept that they probably have skills and training that we don't and respect that knowledge. The flip side of this is that I am much less likely to defer to them about my area of expertise, field archaeology; something that is quite often expected by the less experienced ones. Newbies without a clue be warned.}