Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
So should there be a serious practical element to pre-qualifying as an archaeologist?
Proper Training Digs to train students more than just which end of a bottle to pop in the mouth ( nae offence
)
I learned about pottery when I was on a site with potery, I elarned about lithics when I had to... very ad-hoc. But still... worked for me.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
Two things, quickly, as pushed
Entry level skills? indeed they should be - but the vast majority of new graduate staff we get have no idea about many of the practiclaities of basic field skills. There needs to be joined up thinking between University training and the demands of the commercial archaeology world where the jobs are, as well as an understanding by new graduates that they have a lot still to learn to be a field archaeologist. Companies do need to enable training but we surely should expect our universities to assist before this, as they are not doing the best by their students.
Both Host and I were talking about getting some nous and understanding, acquiring knowledge, not becoming a specialist in detail but getting to enough about things to allow you to do the job better and to enjoy it even more. It is of course a two way street and I'm sorry if the places you have worked don't/didn't offer you the chance to do that.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2007
It's true that many universities are booting their archaeology graduates out into the world woefully unprepared for any actual work... Little (if any) digging experience, and very little survey/planning/anything useful skills. As a result, graduates may be bright and enthusiastic, and probably pretty good at waffling onto paper, but might not be too much use to a commercial archaeology company
No offence to any graduates reading... I am one, and I speak from experience!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
We have discussed the issue of 'training' in universities at length on BAJR before.
The big issue here is to decide whether an archaeology degree is supposed to be 'vocational' (i.e. training for a professional job) or 'educational' (i.e. academic study about archaeology, rather than training to do archaeology).
Many other professions square this circle by restricting the use of their professional title (e.g. 'architect' or 'doctor') to people who have not only obtained a degree in the subject, but have also completed a year of on-the-job training and then another year or two of post-graduate study, usually equivalent to a taught Masters degree. Holders of a BA in Architecture with no further qualifications, for instance, can't call themselves 'architects', only 'architectural technicians'.
That approach, however, would strongly conflict with the general culture in archaeology. We have debated in the past whether or not it is necessary even to hold a first degree to be an archaeologist, and whether it is valid to apply hierarchical structures that distinguish those wielding trowels and mattocks from those making records and writing reports.
The lines are much more sharply drawn in other professions. You would never get an architect or a civil engineer laying bricks, no matter how skilled that job is, and there isn't much overlap between doctors and nurses.
In archaeology, the very blurred line between those who do physical work on site and those who make records/write reports/design and manage projects may be a good thing in itself, but it is also one of the barriers to recognition as a proper profession.
If we did choose to make that distinction much clearer, it would open the way to a much clearer (and more onerous) definition of the qualifications required to be an 'archaeologist', and to creating a proper structure not only for academic study of archaeology but also (separately) for professional training for archaeologists.
I don't really know whether I advocate that course, but it would address some of the problems raised in this debate.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
This also brings us squarely back to the crux of the argument regarding what the 'fair' salary should be. On one hand we are comparing salaries in (contract) archaeology with those in other graduate professions and suggesting that a drastic pay rise is necessary. However, here some of us are saying that the actual degree does not equip people to carry out the job in the field without extensive further training.
Why should we expect contractors to pay average graduate salaries to people who are not up to the job when they graduate - clients would not be too amused by this. Perhaps we should should not be comparing salaries in contract archaeology with average graduate rates unless we are sure that graduates are essential for what we do.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Beamo very well put, If it was not for the community archaeology I did outside of uni I would not have any of the skills I required and have asked that question myself, is the degree worthwhile, well yes it is if you want to research, but I would have been better off on some sort of apprentiship over 3 years rather than the 4 I did at uni.
I trained as a car mechanic for 3 years, doing 4 days in a garage and 1 in collage, maybe a course like that would be more worthwhile, you get proper practical experience, and the theoretical side as well.
As to training I have been asking for 4 months now if I can get some proper training on SLR cameras as I have no real experience on them, its little difficult to learn about that from a book.
The other problem with self teaching, which I fully believe in, is that it can lead to someone having many skills and no reward, but is expected to use them.
May god go with you in all the dark places you must walk.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2006
Beamo, as a current student I have to say that you would be hard pressed to find any degree that would actualy train graduates up to do what they actualy have to for the job. This is why Economics and Management students etc... go off on internships in their holidays and English literature students go to work assisting journalists. And this is also why I spend most of my holdiays off digging when I can. What i get taught for the other 30 weeks of the year is invaluable in itself for my understanding of archaeological theory and I wouldn't want to loose that in exchange for more digging time during term. It also does not help that a lot of training diggs charge the students to go on them (even a few compulsary university run diggs have started doing this).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
So a) It is up to the person to use their time to learn practical skills
b) There needs to be places to learn these skills
c) There needs to be people to teach these skills
d) The Universities have to consider dividing teaching time between Class and Field
e) There needs to be funding (equipment, logistics, pay, insurance, p-x reports and analysis etc)
f) The COntactors should be involved in placements and training
g) The current bursary schemes (good as they are) benefit only a few people and o not lead to full time jobs per se.
h) There is money avaiable for training - so lets tap into it.
i) a Healthy Profession has a range of skills and understandings and must support all branches equally.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
:face-huh:
The idea of placements from University (ie, over the summer or even in term time) in contracting units is a good one. But some guidelines would have to be set up by both parties so that they don't just get farmed out on watching briefs for weeks and don't learn anything. I would love to have the oppoertunity to train up a pre-graduate to give them a head-start in the real world of archaeology.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Either that or just go to one of the unis that do offer placements e.g. Bradford (1 year working) or Bournemouth, doubtless some others too. I think Bradford has the most developed scheme, and when I was there claimed to get the highest proportion of graduates continuing into the profession (I am biased though).
