General Rant!

[moreno]

Do you really think so? Some may have an idea but the majority of those that I know these days are utterly clueless about work outside the academic/university sphere.

Fair enough, and yeah we're not all like that. Besides, the same can be said for those who have a chip on their shoulder about not having a degree

They also don't see it as their job to prepare students for life in commercial archaeology. Instead they are bent on creating lots of little academics out of those that survive their first degrees and go on to study MAs and PhDs.

So...Uni's have nothing to complain about when the profession no longer "requires" a degree...or values their output.

[Marcus Brody]

They also don't see it as their job to prepare students for life in commercial archaeology. Instead they are bent on creating lots of little academics out of those that survive their first degrees and go on to study MAs and PhDs.

But it's not their job to prepare students for a life in commercial archaeology. Their job is to provide classes in archaeology to a suitable standard to allow students to qualify with the relevant degree. What the student does with that degree after graduation in not within the remit of the university, it's entirely down to the individual as to which career path they wish to follow. Some will go into commercial archaeology, some will pursue further study with the aim of becoming an academic, and some (probably the majority) will get jobs entirely outside archaeology.

A course that equipped students purely to work in commercial archaeology would probably be very narrowly-focused, dealing with stratigraphy, dating techniques, finds identification etc, and would probably be largely practical- rather than lecture-based - not necessarily a bad thing, but unlikely to meet the standards required for the award of a degree. It would also probably include a large section dealing with contracts, health-and-safety, the planning system and legal issues. Again, not a bad idea in itself, but unlikely to appeal to anyone who's interested in archaeology but who doesn't want to pursue a career in the commercial sector. I know that the majority of my graduating class studied archaeology because they were interested, but had no intention of doing it as a job, and these people probably wouldn't have taken a more technically-based, commercially-orientated course.

[P Prentice]

Do you really think so? Some may have an idea but the majority of those that I know these days are utterly clueless about work outside the academic/university sphere. They also don't see it as their job to prepare students for life in commercial archaeology. Instead they are bent on creating lots of little academics out of those that survive their first degrees and go on to study MAs and PhDs.

why should they take us seriously when we cant even fill out context sheets?

[deadlylampshade]

Ah...perhaps the thread should be retitled Generalisms.

Or are you using the Royal "we" Mr Prentice?:face-stir:

[P Prentice]

all the threads you post to could carry that banner deadly - sweetheart

[deadlylampshade]

Thanks Love:face-kiss:

[Dinosaur]

....A course that equipped students purely to work in commercial archaeology would probably be very narrowly-focused, dealing with stratigraphy, dating techniques, finds identification etc, and would probably be largely practical- rather than lecture-based - not necessarily a bad thing, but unlikely to meet the standards required for the award of a degree. It would also probably include a large section dealing with contracts, health-and-safety, the planning system and legal issues. Again, not a bad idea in itself, but unlikely to appeal to anyone who's interested in archaeology but who doesn't want to pursue a career in the commercial sector....

To do my job properly as a commercial field archaeologist I have to keep track of all the b*llocks that the academics keep spouting, so that I can bias the limited interventions I'm committing/am allowed to commit in order to supply data for their research agendas. Just common courtesy for this to be reciprocated? !

...although I do dearly love writing that immortal phrase 'contra so-and-so 1998 (or whenever)'....}

[Odinn]

But it's not their job to prepare students for a life in commercial archaeology.

Hmm, yes and no. You make some good points about the nature of an archaeology degree and how it would change if it were more vocational. My personal opinion is that there is a balance to be struck there. The universities are doing their students a disservice by not including more vocational training, but that does not mean that they should solely focus on it. I shall be interested to see how the attitude of the students changes when the fees go up. It is bad enough at the moment with many students believing that they are buying a degree rather than thinking that they should be earning it. I dread to think how much worse it is likely to get when the fees go up. I suspect that there will be many more complaints about how the degrees are not preparing them for earning lots of money in the 'real' world and that they will expect more exam-focused tutoring rather than learning the broader skills set that is meant to be part of a university education.

[Odinn]

why should they take us seriously when we cant even fill out context sheets?

Have you read the context sheets that arise from university excavations? They are no better.

[Marcus Brody]

The universities are doing their students a disservice by not including more vocational training, but that does not mean that they should solely focus on it.

That's only the case if you accept the premise that the sole purpose of an archaeology degree is to equip people for a career in field archaeology, which is not the case. University degree courses have to meet certain academic standards, they're not vocational training centres designed to meet the employment needs of commercial archaeological contractors. Arguably, the fault lies with successive governments pushing the idea that as many people as possible should go to university, with the consequent reduction in the value of a degree (but not the cost of obtaining one). There's still an expectation that a degree equals greater earning potential or at least ensures that you'll be able to walk straight into a job. This may have been the case when only a small minority of people attended university, but is certainly not true now, when almost every candidate for each archaeology job will have one. There's also the question of whether it's desirable for a university education to be viewed solely in terms of the possible financial value gained by enabling you to get a better-paid job - that may be an outcome, but what about the value of education for its own sake?

And then there's the question of whether a degree is really necessary to work in commercial fieldwork. Some of the finest field archaeologists I've ever worked with didn't have degrees, but had simply obtained a wide range of skills by actually doing the job. If contractors feel that degree courses aren't training field staff in the field skills they need, what's to stop them doing it themselves? I know that this has been discussed before, but in terms of those wishing to work in the commercial sector of field archaeology, there should perhaps be an alternative route into the profession. While I wouldn't want to deny anyone who wants it the chance to attend university, starting your working life with debts of ?27,000 or more in a sector where the average salary is well below ?20,000 may not be particularly appealing.