MSC Old Lags

[Tim]

You're spot on Alfie. The class system still exists though. Plus we had time to be trained and work properly (depending on the Unit/project). My year on the MSC/YOP excavations with BUFAU was better training than I ever had in Uni.

Little Tim

[mercenary]

quotelus we had time to be trained and work properly (depending on the Unit/project). My year on the MSC/YOP excavations with BUFAU was better training than I ever had in Uni.

Hmmm... Interesting point. Maybe the decline of skills and lack of proper training in modern archaeology reflect the end of the MSC scheme and not a decline in Uni training. I suspect that in general Uni training was always a bit rubbish (with notable exceptions), but that the MSC people had to be trained from first principles. Thinking back, the best training I have had was always from MSC Old Lags and never from the more academic types. The MSC people just had a much better grasp of the nuts and bolts of the job.

[gumbo]

Agree with lots of what has been said here. A lot of the best people I have worked under (so to speak) have been MSC. Agree a lot with the post about how it opened-up archaeology.

Its a shame that this sort of thing doesnt happen now. Perhaps it should be brought back but...would units have the training funds to put people through an 'apprentiship' if you like. When I started digging eight years ago it felt like the very end of this sort of approach and now new people have a very different experience I think.

In recent years I have tried to get people I work with on a research project jobs for units, and two of them have not got degrees and are now getting on very well at different units. This is perhaps the only way it can happen now? (i.e. an apprentiship through a research project that leads to professional employment later? Would be interested to see what people think.

Gumbo

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

would units have the training funds to put people through an 'apprentiship' if you like.

Under MSC they didn't need to, it was government funded. Eee, I must be getting on a bit if I can remember this stuff, I'll be needing a Shackleton's high seat soon.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[Cautionary Tale]

I can't say that I completely agree with the view that BAJR is pro-degree and anti-experience, at least in recent posts (as evidenced by this thread with posts from some long standing contributors being decidedly in favour of balance at the very least). I for one would contend that the increase in the appearance for requirements for people to hold degrees is largely aimed at new archaeologists rather than MSC archaeologists. The class pendulum in archaeology started at one extreme (with the early archaeologists arguably restricted to wealthy individuals), shifted to the benefit of the "profession" (I use this word only as a last resort in the context of this discussion) with the introduction of Manpower Schemes and the like during the 1980s to a more broad class base, and has recently shifted towards a more formal degree route to gain entry to the industry. While I would agree there has been change in the profession that has resulted in the explosion of degree wielding archaeologists, there have been outside pressures brought to bear that are outside of our control. When PPG16 was introduced, the pressure on archaeologists to provide advice in a planning context increased, and the commercial sector began to require an increased level of taught knowledge as a response. The present government introduced a raft of measures which have resulted in significant numbers of extra graduates (thereby increasing competition for jobs as attested to by other posts) with significant debt, which may have influenced the decision of any prospective student as to whether they would attend university. Undoubtedly this is to the detriment of all professions, not just archaeology though you are right to flag up that more than any other profession archaeology is driven by the personalities and interests of those within it. However, my personal experience in the late 90s was that (having worked holidays and odd hours with local units), it was possible to get an archaeological job whether I had a degree or not, and there was a regular flow of such students to the present. I would also say that the preoccupation with prehistory is not a product of the last 20 years, rather it extends back to the beginning of archaeology as a pursuit. Once again, I am not suggesting that this is a good state of affairs, rather that the research agenda has not been influenced to a more broad direction, even during the MSC period. In a sense, the introduction of PPG16 has arguably helped in this regard, in that even if the research is lacking, the sites themselves have some level of protection (in addition to listing, conservation areas etc). I have even come across several listed football stadia, though I accept not as many as one might have expected. I would not expect any area of archaeological research to be more valid than another, it simply requires the right proposal to attract the funding which does exist and has gone to industrial projects as well as other periods in recent times. In some ways I would view the lack of research in a particular field more as an opportunity for innovative study which may actually be more attractive for funding, though I fear I may have left myself open to some attack on this point (be gentle).

Finally, I would not expect to see you apologise for the views expressed, and we would be poorer if you felt you could not (and look, I've not tried to attack you with the rotten tomatoes in the basket at my feet). If MSC archaeologists are being essentially discriminated against in spite of their experience then this is wrong, but the profession is currently set along the path of the degree (largely driven by the commercial sector) so it is the responsibility of those with the power to hire to keep in mind that degrees are not everything.


(I really have worked in the field)

[gumbo]

I understand how the MSC worked, Sith, I was attempting to open up debate on how close we could get to it in the current environment, given that everyone seems to think it was a very good thing,
.

G

[1man1desk]

Gumbo,

I've got to take issue with your comment that the MSC was a 'good thing'.

I worked on two MSC projects in the mid-1980s. Both were terrible. As a very inexperienced site supervisor, I was in sole charge on-site, with over 20 workers, none of whom had any archaeological experience, knowledge or interest. Their motivation for being there could best be described as 'conscription'. To make it worse, at times we were split between up to 3 locations, still with me as the only archaeologist in charge on site.

The archaeology itself was largely rubbish - the only reason for digging it was to keep the scheme going until something worthwhile came along.

The MSC explicitly refused to fund post-ex work, so what happened was that the experienced staff employed to be in charge on site (over me) actually spent their time indoors doing post-ex on the sly, hoping the MSC administrators wouldn't notice.

I know that some good archaeologists came out of the MSC programme, but I believe they were the exception rather than the rule, and I would be horrified if a programme of that sort were to return.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

That's pretty much the impression I have of the scheme, although I'm too new to the field to have seen it first hand. I too would be horrified to see a similar scheme now, even if it did produce some top rate archs.

[gumbo]

Sorry perhaps I should have been clearer. I wasnt necessarily saying it was a good thing, I was saying that good archaeologists were a by product of it, and that it was a route into archaeology without a degree: something that is increasingly only an option to people who have enough money to put themselves through enough training excavations.

So, although I dont want to dismiss the importance that a degree qualification can have for interpreting the work you do in a field, I would be equally unhappy to see people who do not have a degree excluded from the profession. A lot of this has been trawled over ad nauseum and I know a lot of people agree/disagree. The main point was: what would be the best workable system be for today
, I wasnt trying to be controversial,

Gumbo

[muddyandcold]

In essence the MSC was a great scheme. As with all things available to all it was open to abuse. Of course there were those who chose it as an easy option... Conversely, there were many who embraced it and went on to univ and a career in ruins..

Canterbury Arch Trust was one organisation who made full use of the MSC (that i have experience of) and produced some first rate archaeologists.