uni courses and excavation experience

[Cutesmileuk]

Do you think that graduates that come out of a degree, masters etc have enough training?

Im very lucky that I have had a years placement at Bradford University as well as a university 3 week dig. Placement where I was actually able to go out and work for a year. But alot of other unis only do like 2-6 weeks placements in the field and some are not even compulsory!

Im having trouble trying to find work - and I do have archaeology experience since high school (as was lucky to do my yr 10 placement at a unit).

Did you get enough training? Or did you have to go out and volunteer yourself for like a year or so before being experienced enough?

I think archaeology needs a course (like a NVQ) that you can send people on to get practical experience - needed to go out into the profession - do you agree?

Down below the mines and sea ooze and fake fossil bones put there by the creator with nothing better to do than upset archaeologists and give them silly ideas. Terry Pratchett - The Light Fanastic

[srd123]

Quite agree that many unis do not supply enough practical training. And, unfortunatly, the amount they do supply seems to be being reduced.

If you tried, it was possible to get through my pure archaeology degree with only doing a few days pot washing and poking around some museums for your practical training.

I know that practical training (in terms of digging) can be expensive for the uni to organise but there is stuff that they can do easily without leaving the uni grounds - for instance surveying...

However, I do believe that there is some onus is on the student to, firstly, look at how much training and of what type when deciding which uni to go to, and secondly, to get off their backsides and go and get some volunteer experience. OK, fair enough, a lot of students find that they have to work through the hols, but, talking to the ones at my place a lot of them also seem to be buggering off for two weeks on the beech in some foriegn resort so why not go digging instead?

As for masters, at my place, on the Practical Archaeology MA, they seem to be off digging quite often so I think that they probably do enough..

[SalonKitty]

I think it's fair to say that most universities are not in the business of turning out potential field archaeologists. 3 weeks worth of compulsory excavation experience on a training dig neither encourages graduates to enter the profession nor provides them with enough experience to get a digging job. The Bradford placement year (I did it too) is very much the exception to this as having a years work behind you when you come to get your first job is a real advantage. I came out of university with the same amount experience as you, Cutesmileuk and after a few false starts I got a job as a site assistant with a big unit.

If you are looking for digging jobs, I have noticed a fair number advertised on BAJR that ask for a minimum of six months digging experience. It's definitely a diggers market as demand appears to have outgrown the supply of graduates entering the profession. Having a driving licence and a car does really help your chances of being employed but even without them, I'm sure you will get a job.

Field archaeology is a discipline full of contradictions, many employers prefer their employees to have a degree but they also require a certain amount of experience that most graduates don't have. Much of the theoretical stuff that I learnt at university I have never used and I learnt more from my first job in the field about practical archaeology then I ever did from lectures. However, university does teach you how to write well (hopefully) and being able to write sites up is a neccessary skill if you want to progress up the ladder.

Keep trying with the job, your placement year will stand you in good stead as you have much more experience of working within the profession than most graduates. Good luck with it.

[the invisible man]

No, I do not think that unis provide enough practical training. I do not think that it is necessarily the unis' place to produce a supply of ready made commercial excavators, there are other ways to practise archaeology, but all erquire a grasp of the techniques and procedures. The uni digs are themselves variable in content, amount of actual training, and, err, peculiar practices.

I do think it is incumbent on industry - any industry - to contribute to the training and supply of its own profit-generating workforce, both morally and as sound practice. This used to be more or less the norm but in the inherent greed and short-sightedness prevelant since the early 80's it is not so common. I would like to see all employers - units and so on - taking on a certain number of (paid) newcomers. Idealy this should be an IFA requirement - a similar thing happens with the RIBA for year out students. As I say, it's not rocket science or a revo new idea, it used to be the norm.

But yes, in return an employer should be able to expect to a new grad to at least be familiar with the basics.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[historic building]

I think universities should provide a basic introduction to fieldwork. However the fieldwork at universities tends to be biased towards excavation and seemingly there is little effort to provide any basis of experience in recording and interpreting buildings.

[Dave-Bonner]

quote:Originally posted by historic building

I think universities should provide a basic introduction to fieldwork. However the fieldwork at universities tends to be biased towards excavation and seemingly there is little effort to provide any basis of experience in recording and interpreting buildings.


As someone who has only minimal experience of standing building recording (and some time ago), is there a marked difference in approach to say, observing a complex section, or producing a site plan? Are the basic skills directly transferable from the trench to the.......building.....(for want of a catchier phrase)?

Showing my ignorance in favour of curiosity now, its always good to learn.

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[historic building]

Elements of the basic skills are similar - producing survey drawings, however the problems of having standing walling to measure around I have seen frequently confuse many highly skilled field archaeologists. The main issue is how the standing fabric is interpreted. The number of times I have visited sites where a building has been under excavation and the field archaeologists excavating it simply have not understood how to interpret it does show that there is a vast gulf of knowledge within the discipline.

[BAJR Host]

Oh... yes...:D

There is a big difference between and archaeologist who records buildings and a buildings archaeologist... and as HB says... then add on Buildings Ananlyst or Architectural Historian..

We have a Serious skill shortage...

Another day another WSI…

[historic building]

Personally i think it is a great problem that people are excavating urban sites without the ability to understand the remains of buildings they are excavating.

On a site i was monitoring recently i was having to explain to the excavation team how foundations worked in relation to the surrounding buildings.

This does lead into the greater problem that there are too few people who can actually record and understand standing builidngs.

[Vis]

Basically No.

and to quote someone else's post

"Quite agree that many unis do not supply enough practical training. And, unfortunatly, the amount they do supply seems to be being reduced.
"

If you retype 'unis' to read 'units' you also get a very valid statement.

[peta]

my uni (liverpool) only requires archaeology students to do 4 weeks of digging, or 2 weeks if they do archaeology + 1 other subject. they don't bother with part time students like me at all ! so i'm doing a training dig out of my own pocket, just so i can get my hands dirty. otherwise i just feel like an armchair archaeologist - neither use nor ornament !

but i know that a week's digging here or there is not enough to get me a job, so the barrier remains. is voluntary digging counted when employers ask for work experience i wonder ?

peta

[mercenary]

Voluntary work must have counted as experience when I started out. I got to 4 months worth before my first paying job (including a training dig). This was 10 years ago and things have probably changed a bit.
I suspect that less experience is expected now, because there are more jobs, and it is harder to get voluntary experience nowadays. I'm sure that employers read between the lines and have a pretty good idea of the type of experience an individual is getting from the type of voluntary work. So the more thorough the better really. Training digs although quite expensive can be a good investment. But do your research.

[the invisible man]

As well as practical training, which I take as meaning here excavation and possibly related surveying skills etc, I am coming to think that unis CRM modules should be expanded to include a professional Practice element (or separate module). This should cover principles of contracts, tendering procedures, some basics of the planning system, who does what (and to whom!), elementary project management, that sort of thing.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[mercenary]

Ten years into my career and I could really use that sort of stuff!:D

[peta]

hey that's a really good idea !

i did have to do an assignment once about how i would organise the environmental archaeology aspect of a dig. pretty stupid at that point since i hadn't actually set foot on a dig, and had no idea who was supposed to do what (and to whom !).

it would be great if the final and compulsory module of an archaeology course was entitled "how to get a job in archaeology" !

peta

[Paul Belford]

A seminar which aims to develop "a productive dialogue between those involved in the teaching of archaeology in higher education and those involved in the development of professional training in archaeology" is described on this thread (http://www.bajr.org/bajrforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=725).

I am not involved, or in any way interested in promoting it, it just seemed relevant to many of the issues being discussed here.