Worth an extra year?

[stonecirclegirl]

Hellooo,

I've been away for a bit tearing my hair out over revision, but now it's OVER (YAYYYY) and I can get back to the real world (relatively speaking of course).

I was wondering... some time ago now we were told during a lecture that an 'average' degree (ie BSc) won't get you too far when leaving uni and searching for jobs, but that having say an MSc will significantly improve your chances. I may sound naive but I thought a basic degree would do. (Maybe with a view to going on to Masters sometime in the future).

Is this the case? Is it better to do that extra year or so and 'specialise'? How many of the folks on here have done Masters degrees? And did it really help? I'm doing a Field Arch degree so I guess I'm specialising anyway to some extent.

I know, I've got another 2 years to go yet, but this really made me wonder....[?]

[gumbo]

Dear Stone Circle Girl,

If you want to get a job in professional archaeology as a site assistant an undergraduate degree will easily be enough providing you make a concerted effort during your degree to get as much field work experience as possible, you are persistent in sending CV's and calling Units once you finish your degree and you are prepared to work anywhere in the country.

As for progressing beyond the site assistant level. There are many different experiences and routes that people have discussed on these pages. My route was that I dug the circuit for two years before doing a research MA. After I completed my MA I started getting supervisory positions and am now working as a Project Officer. However, my personal experience was that being skilled in the field, easy to get on with and ambitious (but not obviously desperate) were more important prerequisits to getting promotion than having an MA. You also have to be in the right place at the right time. A driving liscence is also a big plus.

However, I would also say that the skills I learnt during my MA have made me a better interpreter of the evidence from a site, and also a better report writer: skills that undoubtedly helped me to get on. However, they did not specifically help me get promotion.

I did not specialise at Masters level and cannot comment on how that might help with employment. Anyone else?...

[mercenary]

My own personal view is no, unless you want to specialize in which case it is essential. I increasingly work with archaeologists who are somewhat bitter at the time and money spent on masters degrees and sometimes PhD's. A lot of these folk want to specialize and there just aren't enough jobs out there so are stuck in the field side with under used specialist skills. Eventually however a lot of them do forge careers as specialists.

I however, have no wish to specialize in order to forge a niche in the employment market so more education has limited appeal. Whenever I do research into the more general degrees I am struck by how little they teach that I don't already know to a very high level, so I'm again put off. I can see that this may be supporting an argument for doing a second degree before entering the profession in anger, but it's too late for me.

On the other hand I get the feeling that first degrees are no longer teaching the archaeological skills that I was lucky enough to get with my foreign degree. Perhaps teaching of these skills is now left until a masters degree? If so, IMO there is probably some truth in what you were told, but it's a shocking testament to a decline in the degrees rather than a change in the job market.

[the invisible man]

Beware the vested interest. Of course the university wants you to do a Masters. Another word for student is paying customer. Well ok it's two words.


We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Sparky]

'However, my personal experience was that being skilled in the field, easy to get on with and ambitious'

Is the G we all know?

[diggerhobbit]

Hello,
I would echo the previous comments made, i did a masters (i was lucky as it was funded) and i did it because i knew that to have the chance to get funding for my PhD you have to have a masters these days - well you do if your applying to funding bodies like AHRC anyway. In terms of working in the field, I wouldn't say it has really helped me climb the ladder so to speak, my understanding of the archaeology has improved i suppose - although this also comes with experience. i think it depends what sought of masters you choose to do - a taught one or a research one. Mine was in scientific methods, which was very good but quite general really. If you want to go on to do a PhD and do further research, its a good idea to do one, if you want to specialise i would choose one which is specific to the specialism you are interested in, as i said mine was a bit general. But if you want a career in the field i think your undergraduate degree would be a solid foundation to work from, then you could always go back to uni at a later date having got a couple of years fieldwork under your belt - i think i definately had more awareness and understanding during my masters having had a couple of years break digging [8D]

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

[gumbo]

Yeh sorry I realise that sounds a bit arrogant out of context. I think I was highlighting the ideal rather than what I think I actually achieve.

Obviously skilled in the field really means 1 cut 1 fill hacked out. Easy to get on with means at least to your face and dont worry about what goes on behind your back. Ambitious really means lazy but arselicking

Of course only others can judge!!

G

[Sparky]

Easy G!

In reply to the thread, I would recommend a taught masters with a vocational element. Most of these types of courses, such as Environmental Archaeology, Landscape and any of the material sciences, to name a few, will help in the field and experience in the field will help you understand more about those subjects. It all helps builds up your confidence to talk about not only the subject you know and are understanding more, but also the technical field work. However, the more experience in the field, the better.

[stonecirclegirl]

Thanks for all your answers - very interesting.:D

I guess in a way I'm already specialising a bit as I'm doing field archaeology as opposed to straight arch degree.

Trouble is I'm now drawn to the post-excavation side of it, namely osteoarchaeology, which Bournemouth offers as a taught Masters.

Maybe a few years in the field then see if I can afford more study... guess I've still got 2 years to think about it :face-huh:

Thanks all [8D]

[Dave-Bonner]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

Yeh sorry I realise that sounds a bit arrogant out of context. I think I was highlighting the ideal rather than what I think I actually achieve.

Obviously skilled in the field really means 1 cut 1 fill hacked out. Easy to get on with means at least to your face and dont worry about what goes on behind your back. Ambitious really means lazy but arselicking

Of course only others can judge!!

G


'is the G.......'

Sorry, joke!!!:face-stir:B):D

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

I don't work for Network...honest gov!

[historic building]

Masters degrees have changed a bit since I did mine, back in the olden days, however they can still be excellent opportunities - depending on what you make of them. I did an old fashioned period masters, but focused on standing buildings and urban archaeology for the degree. This is pretty well what i have continued to focus my carreer on and having the masters has done me a lot of good.

It is definitly worth planning your masters early and contacting all relevant institutions and asking them for money. If a department is any good, or if a course is well respected, the department will have access to grant money which it can give to students. Most universities will have an internal funding competition as well. Where I did my masters degree the different bits of the university had various pockets of cash here and there.

Good luck :)

[Curator Kid]

If you want to specialise straight away, then a Masters is essential as has been said previously. However, don't forget that places like English Heritage and County Councils do offer general schemes where they give staff time off for further education, pay half of the costs, etc. Some of the bigger units are beginning to cotton on to this as well. After a couple of years in the field getting some useful experience, you could continue to study with the finacial support and blessing of an employer. If you've got two years before you have to decide, it'd be worth checking out what options are available before jumping into a scenario where you are potentially limiting your employment options and not earning any money for another year.

[1man1desk]

Well, I did a BA and then worked for 9 years (including an 'in-service training course'), and managed to climb the pole as far as the equivalent of Project Officer, before moving into consultancy (now 13 years ago). If I had stayed where I was, I don't see why I couldn't have carried on up the greasy pole in field units.

If you want to work as a general archaeologist, field experience is the most important thing - but make sure that you get as much experience of recording, sampling etc as you can. However, to climb above site supervisor level, you need to get the opportunity to do some post-ex, project design and report-writing, and that experience is hard to get - hence my in-service course.

My view is that a Masters ought to be for people who either want to convert to archaeology from another degree, or who want to specialise, or otherwise change the direction of their career. Personally, I started a Masters 19 years after my first degree (now just about finished), but it was not in archaeology and related to a change in the direction of my career.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Sparky]

Is there a taught masters in arrogant archaeology? Seems to be a lot about.

[1man1desk]

I think that is a bit uncalled-for. I don't see anything arrogant in any of the posts on this thread. Advice has been asked for - would you rather that it came from people without relevant experience, or that they gave advice without reference to their experience?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Sparky]

Yep you are right, mostly.

[stonecirclegirl]

quote:Originally posted by Curator Kid

... don't forget that places like English Heritage and County Councils do offer general schemes where they give staff time off for further education, pay half of the costs, etc. Some of the bigger units are beginning to cotton on to this as well. After a couple of years in the field getting some useful experience, you could continue to study with the finacial support and blessing of an employer. If you've got two years before you have to decide, it'd be worth checking out what options are available before jumping into a scenario where you are potentially limiting your employment options and not earning any money for another year.


That sort of thing would be ideal and was one of the possibilities I had thought of - if of course I could be lucky enough to get with the right employer!

I get the argument about no money for another year - am struggling a bit now. Yep its def a case of either bite the bullet and put up with another year of 'poor student', or do I get out there and just hope I can afford to come back to it... Hmmm:face-huh:



As for arrogant archaeology - I didn't intend to start an argument with this question. I have found all of these answers interesting and informative - and not at all arrogant. Sorry Sparky but to me its just people with experience sharing their views - which is exactly what I asked for.

[drpeterwardle]

I think what is needed is some hard fact about what degrees people have at what level and the percentage of people with degrees getting jobs. Bradford boasts 93% success for its graduates and has had a similar figure for 25 years.

Of my class 81 on masters degrees at Bradford all of those who wanted to stay in archaeology did so and have had good careers since. The same can be said of those that did PhDs.

I do wonder about just how many palaeo-pathologists we actually need though.

Archaeologists who have done a masters in town and country planning have all got good jobs.

Peter Wardle

[eggbasket]

Getting back to the original comment, I think that generally speaking first degrees (BA, BSc) are so much more common now that a Masters is required to make you stand out in many fields. However, if you are starting out in field archaeology a first degree is probably enough and you should get more out of the Masters with a few years' experience under your belt.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"A stitch in time saves precious bodily fluids."

[troll]

Greetings Bournemouth type personage.A terrible place to be.Especially with 7 miles of white sandy beaches and blue sea to deal with.The palm trees make it an especially harsh study environment too.I`m not really jealous.Although I have`nt taken the MSc at Bournemouth, I know a few that have and they all agree its a course well worth the debt.I think its really an issue of timing-I really had little idea of where I saw myself 1, 3 or 5 years after graduation.I simply wanted to dig so could`nt wait to get me boots on.There were a good few of a similar mind in my year (Bournemouth) and probably an equal number who were determined to go straight into a taught Masters.I`ve only recently made serious moves to apply for a Masters after nearly nine years.I think I have gone about it the right way for me simply because I needed to know what flicked my switch before I got in any more debt paying for a degree I may not want in the future.Cowardly I know-but as a graduate,how can we be expected to identify a specialism when we have`nt got our boots on yet? Everything that subscribers have offered here are real-time experience based responses.Individuals that are motivated and enthusiastic will find their space in archaeology whether they embark upon post-grad studies immediately or, jump in with a shovel.My nugget of wisdom would be to look at the financial implications of debt so soon after graduation.At Bournemouth, the Osteo/Palaeopath and funerary/mortuary elements of undergrad studies fired plenty of imaginations and I can understand completely how the Masters courses there do so well.It would be a superb course to undertake but for me, I`m a bit impatient-went to play for a bit!:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Sparky]

Hi SC Girl,
No need to be sorry. It was jovial jibe at Gumbo. No offence meant. All advice is good; its the what you do with it that counts. In my experience this web site has provided much help and advice whenever its been asked.
Hope it all helps.

[stonecirclegirl]

quote:Originally posted by troll

Greetings Bournemouth type personage.A terrible place to be.Especially with 7 miles of white sandy beaches and blue sea to deal with.The palm trees make it an especially harsh study environment too.I`m not really jealous.

I know... it's horrible[8D]

Actually when you've lived here your whole life you don't really see the 'tarty' bits of Bournemouth... just the rubbish ones. And I live in Poole so that can be even worse. Am I being cynical or what?

No they're not that bad really... before anyone shouts at me;)

Thanks for your advice troll. All very interesting to read. I have been rethinking once again, and now have confused myself. think I'll give it a while longer now before I decide - have got another 2 years to ponder!

Thanks to eggbasket too for your advice and to everyone else. Much to think about....:face-huh:

We have started our summer dig now... actually two and a bit weeks in. And I have decided one thing at least.... I love trowelling! Does that make me a bit sad? Will the novelty wear off? Ah well... happy days wtih my whs... for now....:D

[Curator Kid]

The novelty of trowelling never wears off - it's just the surfaces of the bones in your wrist that tend to...