General Rant!

[Odinn]

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

I disagree. It is not specifically to do with making the degree training for commercial archaeology but rather to do with how the students develop their thought processes and understand the limitations of data-gathering techniques and interpretation of that same data. Teaching the students about the commercial world and how the data is recovered under those circumstances is a part of archaeology. Without it the degree does not cover archaeology properly because the students do not learn all the ways that data is recovered. Therefore they do not have a context for critically assessing the data and interpreting it, which must surely impede their ability to develop a suitable level of critical thinking. That self-same critical thinking is one of the most important skills that a humanities graduate can develop and bring into society.

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.

I never said they were. I merely pointed out that I believe more information about commercial archaeology would round out the degree properly.

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?

Can't disagree with this. The over-emphasis on the financial gains to be made by having a degree is pure political flim-flammery and completely ignores all the benefits that society can have by having a well-educated populace. Of course, governments don't like that sort of populace because it can make them harder to fool or lead. As for the diminshed value of a degree, well, I am really feeling that. I did my first degree back when less than 2% of the country went to university and I got a grant to do so. I felt I had to return to university to keep myself competitive in the market place because so many more people now have Bachelors degrees.

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.

Agreed.

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.

The prospect of that level of debt seems to be discouraging the children of my friends. I wonder if it will lead to a diminution of the university sector in the long run.

[Marcus Brody]

I disagree. It is not specifically to do with making the degree training for commercial archaeology but rather to do with how the students develop their thought processes and understand the limitations of data-gathering techniques and interpretation of that same data.

Ah, I think we may have been talking at cross purposes on this aspect, then. However, I'd contend that when a project officer on a commercial site moans that recent graduates aren't equipped with the skills to work in the sector, he or she is more likely to mean that they can't dig or record at the required speed or to the necessary standard, or that they don't know how to set up a level or survey, rather than that their thought process or critical faculties aren't up to gathering or interpreting the data. As you say, critical thinking is one of the main values of all humanities degrees, not just archaeology, and is applicable outside the field of commercial contracting. Obviously, site skills of this type take time to acquire, so my statement that it's not the role of universities to train people to work in commercial archaeology should be viewed in that light - skills like these are best developed through practical application rather than in the lecture theatre. I agree with you that universities should teach students about the commercial sector, in that it's a part of archaeology that some may work in, but I don't think that courses should be geared narrowly towards churning out staff solely equipped to working in that sector.

[Oxbeast]

I agree with you that universities should teach students about the commercial sector, in that it's a part of archaeology that some may work in, but I don't think that courses should be geared narrowly towards churning out staff solely equipped to working in that sector.

Totally agree, any more than English degrees should focus solely on training people to become writers or playwrights or whatever. We have kicked this around on other threads, and I think that what I ended up saying was that when 95% of grads go one to do things other than commerical digging, if you make the course too vocational and aimed at that one aspect, you would be doing a disservice to the majority of students.

In reply to the original poster:

People should be warned about this before deciding to go to University and studying the subject if they want a future!

Presumably you want this warning before you filled in your UCAS form... how would this warning be delivered, and by whom? I think that in the future, prespective students are going to have to do some careers research before they commit to a degree course.

[kevin wooldridge]

Presumably you want this warning before you filled in your UCAS form... how would this warning be delivered, and by whom? I think that in the future, prespective students are going to have to do some careers research before they commit to a degree course.

I think you have made the point Oxbeast on how important an archaeology degree is in your previous sentence, when you state that 95% of archaeology graduates make a scuccesful career in a non-archaeological field.

What it boils down to is that the original poster didn't choose the wrong degree course, but that they chose the wrong post-degree career!!

PS ... and 95% of archaeology graduates prove that its never too late to change your mind...

[Marcus Brody]

Presumably you want this warning before you filled in your UCAS form... how would this warning be delivered, and by whom? I think that in the future, prespective students are going to have to do some careers research before they commit to a degree course.

It's questionable how effective any such warning would be. My parents did query my choice of degree when I was filling in my UCCA form, but I didn't pay much attention to their questions about what sort of job I'd be able to get or how much I'd earn, and I suspect most people interested in pursuing a career in archaeology are probably the same.

What it boils down to is that the original poster didn't choose the wrong degree course, but that they chose the wrong post-degree career!!

It might be fairer to say that the original poster has been unlucky enough to be leaving university at a time when there are very few jobs in commercial archaeology around. When I graduated, I was lucky that there was plenty of work available, so I was able to work constantly on a variety of sites all round the country, but that's unlikely to be possible for those leaving university at the moment.

[Doug]

I think I will be the voice of decent on this idea that degrees should not teach commercial archaeology.

First, the idea that 95% of archaeology students don’t go into archaeology. Yes, true in the past BUT will it be true in the future? A few years ago degrees were free so anyone could go to uni f?&$ around and face no consequences. Now it costs money, money that is about to triple in price next year. It is only a matter of time before fee limits are lifted and then prices will take off above inflation (happened in American, the average tuition has risen above inflation for every year except a few in the 1970’s during hyperinflation times).

Degrees in archaeology, as they have always been, will be for those who want to go into archaeology or who are there to f around and just get a degree BUT those who can afford the last category will be shrinking fast. Unless, those in the first category can gain something that will help them in their career those numbers will be shrinking as well. It will no longer be 95% who do something else.

What’s the alternative to uni? Go out and get an archaeology job without a degree. Yes it happened in the past but that was a different time and different conditions. When was the last time you ran into an archaeologists without a degree who just started working in the last 10 yrs. 1% maybe.

Face it until an alternative is created the market is flooded with archaeologists with degrees who are doing to be ahead in line of those who don’t, even if they (without degrees) have more experience and are better archaeologists. It is a lose-lose situation that can at least be helped by preparing someone for a career.

It’s not the system we want but is the system we are stuck with.

[Doug]

As for the idea that universities teach students how to think or critical thinking or how to be an observer of conditions or what ever the hell you want to call it, I pose this:

With a straight face can you say that every class you took at uni gave you the skills to think? That before going to uni you did not think at all. That uni “taught you how to think about archaeology”.

Lets get real, uni’s could teach practical skills, which by the way proposal writing, making budgets or completing a task on time is more valuable for the 95% who do not go into archaeology then thinking about the Neolithic, or they could teach about theories and your level of critical thinking would stay the same.

The difference is one could put food on your table or help you in another career.

Teaching practical skills and theory is the same. What you want is for someone to understand and to be able to question the reasoning behind it, whatever it is. If it’s theories on Mesolithic migrations or putting your accounts payable in column B some people will accept it as is and some people will understand why it is that way and maybe change because they do not agree with that reasoning.

The content does not matter it is what you do with that content that matters. And right now uni’s teach content and not what to do with that content. So I would put forth teach content that can help a person in their career as unfortunately the world has changed and now that is why you go to uni.

This argument is looking at what the world is not what it should be. I do not think everyone should go to uni to be an archaeologists, lawyer, writer, etc. but that is not the world we live in.

[the invisible man]

In my humble, you get out of uni more or less what you put in. Certainly it is almost impossible to fail, provided you turn up (sometimes) and submit something, and I have come across people with degrees who display a mind-boggling lack of knowledge, or a complete misunderstanding. However, it is also possible to get an excellent education, if you enter into the spirit of the thing. If you expect to be spoon-fed, I doubt if you will get much out of it.

I would certainly agree that universities (as far as I can see, I've only been to one) could probably add a little more practical content - not necessarily just digging under commercial conditions, but as suggested above, in project planning and so on - the management and professional practice side. I subscribe to the view though that this is not their primary function: a new graduate is not the finished article, far from it, but is prepared and equipped to commence their professional career in whichever field or discipline they choose.

None of this is peculiar to archaeology. I know a number of fully qualified architects (not that unqualified architects exist, by definition) who quite frankly you wonder how they got though
their first year. I also know a number who are very competent and talented, and a large number somewhere in between.

[Marcus Brody]

Teaching practical skills and theory is the same.

Yes, teaching practical skills will equip you with the tools to do one specific job (albeit very well), but may make the student too specialised to do anything else, hence why I said that an archaeology degree shouldn't just be a production line churning out diggers for the commercial sector. There's no problem with this type of course in itself, but it's unlikely to be particularly attractive for the 95% of archaeology graduates who don't want to work within that particular niche.

And right now uni?s teach content and not what to do with that content. So I would put forth teach content that can help a person in their career as unfortunately the world has changed and now that is why you go to uni.

But it must be up to the individual student to decide what they want to do with that content. As I said previously, some may wish to go into commercial archaeology, some will undertake further study to go into academia, and the majority will probably do something outside archaeology. I suppose at the moment most degree courses are heavily weighted towards those who want to pursue an academic path, so there would be scope for re-balancing them by including elements applicable to a commercial career, but I don't think it would be helpful to tip completely to the other extreme and have all degree courses solely designed to produce staff for commercial contractors.

[Doug]

a new graduate is not the finished article, far from it, but is prepared and equipped to commence their professional career in whichever field or discipline they choose.

I completely agree that a new graduate is not a finished product. Probably no one is and we should all be constantly trying to learn and improve.

That being said the rest of the world does not look at it that way, by rest of the world I mean employers. I am not sure when or where it happened but now employers EXPECT graduates to be able to complete the jobs they are give with no to limited training. The idea of training has now been passed on to the individual to take care of. It saves money and protects profits, not just in archaeology but every profession now. Not a bad thing but it means that employees have to pay to get trained.


That is were uni's come in, most graduates now look to universities as the place to get training. Which rightly I think they should as they are the ones now paying for their degrees. If I pay for a service I have expectations of that service or I would want a refund.

If you havn't been to uni and a while and had to pay you probably have a different perspective of what a uni is about. Nothing wrong with that view BUT as I said before the world is changing fast and so are expectations of requirements to live in it. We have to face up to these realities or we get nowhere.

The functions of universities have changed whether they like it or not. It was not their choice, well none of them have said no to people trying to give them money or challenge the notion that everyone should get a degree, but it is a reality they have to live with.