Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
28th March 2014, 07:53 PM
what some of dont like is that standards appear to be being set by Money-Making Consultants, who then advise clients directly and set agendas for comercial projects....
It might be asking to much for the Vice chair and Chair of Practice commitee (for example) to have more than a BA and a few years in the field....perhapes that is just tooooo ivory tower?
How about some more basic stuff...like a decent publication record (as main author), or a demonstrable direct knowledge/experince with advanced methodologies, or multi-disciplinary expertise?
oh well..looks like the MBa (pending) will have to do....
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
28th March 2014, 08:38 PM
Mr Wooldridge, isn't everything political but I do not think that the situation should be about a part time hands on interest in the subject or about going to see stuff in a museum. The subject is about archaeology under threat from development. It is about commercial developer funded archaeology set out in regulations/conventions requiring qualified archaeologists. It is about excavation techniques, methods and standards, discard policy and significant decisions involving other peoples money and protecting archaeology for the public. Valetta wanted to make that a convention across Europe. Since this convention was signed it is now compulsory for people in the uk to stay in education until they are eighteen. The last government rallied round education, education, education. Now student take out loans running into the tens of thousands to do archaeology courses at university. Around 2 thousand are processed every year. Manpower service schemes don't exist any more to provide the first step on the old lag ladder. To not have accredited graduate education as part of the archaeological qualification for developer funded archaeology I think weakens the industry. The rest of the development industry is massively strengthened by their association with graduate accredited courses and the courses are also highly sort after internationally.
Quote:The RIBA has three parts to the education process: Part I which is generally a three-year first degree, a year-out of at least one year work experience in an architectural practice precedes the Part II which is generally a two-year post graduate diploma or masters. A further year out must be taken before the RIBA Part III professional exams can be taken. Overall it takes a minimum of seven years before an architecture student can seek chartered status
Chartered civil engineer:
http://www.ice.org.uk/educationalbase
The formation process of a chartered engineer generally takes a minimum of four years over and above an accredited Master in Engineering degree but, in most cases, at least five years are needed. The title chartered engineer is protected by civil law. The Engineering Council regulates the practice of professional engineering in the UK. With more than 180,000 registrants from many countries, designation as a chartered engineer is one of the most-recognizable international engineering qualifications.
Chartered surveyor
http://www.rics.org/uk/join/member-mrics/academic/
Its actually pretty difficult to find a Chartered association without accredited graduate career paths.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
28th March 2014, 09:44 PM
Just want to defend non-arcahaeology-degree-holding field archaeologists. There. Done.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
28th March 2014, 11:24 PM
Tool Wrote:Just want to defend non-arcahaeology-degree-holding field archaeologists.
me 2 :face-approve:
...and would be happy to see them in a practice comitee....if they did not have very obvious
vested commercial interests, and ideally had a very substantial and significant publication/research record
!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
28th March 2014, 11:47 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:me 2 :face-approve:
...and would be happy to see them in a practice comitee....if they did not have very obvious vested commercial interests, and ideally had a very substantial and significant publication/research record!
I'm guessing the majority of field archaeologists have a vested commercial interest, as they probably work in commercial archaeology and want to continue getting paid for doing the job they love doing.
As to a 'substantial and significant [define significant] publication/research record', I suspect that the majority of field archaeologists, as they again are employed in the commercial sector, ain't going to get the chance to produce such a body of work. I may be wrong though - I'm new to all this, and am faintly amused by the animosity (and occasional, dare I say, narrow mindedness) that sadly inhabits this wonderful business/profession/vocation/whatever you call it. :face-stir:
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
28th March 2014, 11:48 PM
Tool do you think that non-arcahaeology-degree-holding field archaeologists should be defended by not accrediting graduate archaeology courses. These are people who have dedicated their education to the study of archaeology in preparation to undertake field work.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
28th March 2014, 11:52 PM
Marc Berger Wrote:Tool do you think that non-arcahaeology-degree-holding field archaeologists should be defended by not accrediting graduate archaeology courses. These are people who have dedicated their education to the study of archaeology in preparation to undertake field work.
To be honest I don't understand the concept of accredited graduate archaeology. In my book you either have a degree or you don't. From what I've seen, having an archaeology degree does not make a field archaeologist, so find it a bit of a non-argument.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2010
29th March 2014, 07:54 AM
Tool Wrote:To be honest I don't understand the concept of accredited graduate archaeology. In my book you either have a degree or you don't. From what I've seen, having an archaeology degree does not make a field archaeologist, so find it a bit of a non-argument.
Tool, im with you but also that having a degree potentially makes a better digger, although writing up certainly does! I love digging but writing up is where the fun really starts!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
29th March 2014, 06:45 PM
archaeologyexile Wrote:Tool, im with you but also that having a degree potentially makes a better digger!
Out of interest how do you think that having a degree potentially make you a better digger? In my experience the only part of my degree that actually taught me anything about digging was pushing wheelbarrows for three weeks for the MSC team that were actually excavating the site.
Agree completely about writing up.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
29th March 2014, 06:49 PM
archaeologyexile Wrote:Tool, im with you but also that having a degree potentially makes a better digger, although writing up certainly does! I love digging but writing up is where the fun really starts!
I'm actually more than a little concerned how little an archaeology degree does prepare people for commercial fieldwork. I'm not sure that academia has caught up with the harsh reality that if you want to dig, you'll most likely have to take the construction industry shilling. But that's also one of my complaints about the IfA... But I would grant you that studying at that level will certainly help you to be able to write clearly, concisely, logically without going off into flights of fancy. Although I have read reports from Masters graduates that, to be blunt, leave a lot to be desired. But any degree that requires the sorting, organising and writing up of information should serve the purpose.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
