MSC Old Lags

[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)