A misunderstanding with who we are...

[RedEarth]

'I've just logged on after an absence of some days.

Slightly depressing really - a new thread with a positive, forward-looking approach; it's been here 4 days, over 100 people have read it, and not one response.'

Sorry - not used to this lark yet and hadn't realised that this topic was started in response to mine: 'So called archaeologists'. I'll go and respond on that thread to boost the numbers, although I'm sure no-one will notice.

[deepdigger]

I did!!

deep

[1man1desk]

Actually, RedEarth, I think you'll find that this thread pre-dates yours by a month or so.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[RedEarth]

'Actually, RedEarth, I think you'll find that this thread pre-dates yours by a month or so.'

Eventually I might get to grips with this whole forum concept... I've actually mentioned the problems with coherently commenting on/criticising/discussing issues within archaeology through forms such as this under 'So-called archaeologists'.

[AHERO]

I totally agree that universities devote little time to informing students about possible career options. I graduated two and a half years ago and it wasnt until i started working in professional archaeology that I found out archaeological consultancies existed and that many offered graduate schemes. I wish I had been made aware of this at university as this is an area I have been keen to get in to. As it is, I am now in the inbetween stage where I am no longer a graduate but do not have enough experience to join a consultancy at the level most are looking for (five years plus experience).

[Cautionary Tale]

Don't restrict your employment opportunities so quickly. There are consultancies who advertise for/take on trainees as well as graduates where experience requirements are not as onerous. money may not be too hot (in consultancy terms), but it is an access route.

Of the Clan Sutton

[1man1desk]

AHERO,

I am a senior manager in a consultancy firm, and regularly involved in recruiting. We would be more likely to take on someone in your position than a raw graduate straight from Uni.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[star-nosed mole]

Totally agree with all said so far. Yes, university archaeology departments do need to spend more time 'training' people for a career in archaeology (how to use an SMR, PPG16, law, planning etc) but unfortunately the universities have very little power to do this at an undergraduate level (although some like Bradford do it) .

Departments are under more and more pressure to provide students with 'cross-transferable skills' - i.e. people can do an archaeology degree and then go off and have a completely different career. It is therefore at the postgraduate level, not undergraduate, when this training must take place. People will have already decided that archaeology is for them, but need more training, experience, and contacts to help them on their way.

Courses like the Oxford MSc Professional Archaeology are an excellent way of doing this. It enables you to have 3 three-month placements with different archaeological organisations (units, EH, local authorities, IFA, museums, academic departments etc). The course is available full-time and part-time. Both can be expensive (Oxford like to charge you extra just cos they're Oxford) but as Beer Beast said, there are grants etc. available if you ask enough (as an ex-graduate of this course with AHRB funding to do it I should know).

Sounds great and other unis should join in.... BUT (here's the bombshell [:0]) there is only ONE full-time person registered on this course this year - WHY?

Perhaps it is the cost, perhaps the department don't publicise it enough, perhaps it is not aimed clearly enough at undergrads who want to work in archaeology but need a little more experience. Any other ideas?

[rachstebbs]

This discussion keeps coming up and really needs to be addressed. Any ideas or input for a paper at the conference? [?]

Now for my opinion (again!) I do agree with star-nosed mole that universities need to offer more training and that it is at post-grad level it will probably be taught, BUT how can you have an undergraduate degree in archaeology and not know what an SMR is?! (surely it should have been consulted for most dissertations anyway?!) Why should we expect to be employed if we can't say what the law surrounding the profession is?[:I]
As much as I agree units and archaeological organisations should contribute to training, whether that be taking on placement students or offering training places, at the end of the day I pay my fees to the university. Research and academia have their place in the grand scheme of things, they are vital to this profession. BUT the majority of students who go on to have a career in archaeology will not be sat writing papers and books, which is what the universities seem to be preparing us for. If it wasn't for my placements, I wouldn't know how an SMR worked, what PPG16 was, or that commercial archaeology is nothing like the pottering about you do at university...
I'm not expecting to graduate knowing everything there is to know about working in archaeology, but I should at least know the basics of the profession.

[the invisible man]

I agree Rach. These things are really very basic and should be covered at undergrad level - I assumed they were done in year 1, to be honest! What was that funny thing about a shed on Shetland all about then? (I joined at year 2 you see). I seem to recall they were even covered, albeit briefly, in the extra-mural certificate and diploma courses I did some years ago.

Bear in mind Rach that the single module in CRM at Bradders is done in the final year - after your placement. I don't recall any mention of SMR's though and PPG16 got one lecture.

I would hope that the Oxford MSc offers a bit more than an introduction to SMR for that money!



We owe the dead nothing but the truth.