A misunderstanding with who we are...

[BAJR Host]

I've just logged on after an absence of some days.

Slightly depressing really - a new thread with a positive, forward-looking approach; it's been here 4 days, over 100 people have read it, and not one response.

Well, here's a start. One problem that concerns me is the widespread ignorance and misunderstanding between different branches of the profession, often reflected in the discussions on some BAJR-Baiting threads. Many archaeologists appear unaware of the existence of some other branches of the profession, or completely misunderstand what people in other branches do.

I think that the root of the problem is in the approach of the universities, most of whom devote little if any time to informing their students about the potential careers open to them or about the basis upon which commercial archaeology in the UK works.

However, there is a potential solution that is not dependent on reforming university courses. Responsible organisations that wish to be seen as good employers could offer more CPD courses to their own staff, and as part of that could invite members of other parts of the profession to give short talks about what they do, given either in the evenings after work or at lunchtime.

I would be happy to contribute to this kind of thing from the consultancy side.

By the way, when I talk about 'branches of the profession', what I have in mind are:
1. Field archaeologists;
2. Specialists (artefactual, environmental, etc);
3. Curators;
4. Consultants;
5. Academics.

Anyone got a different list? Have I forgotten anyone?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

Another day another WSI…

[Cautionary Tale]

I think I'd agree with the list, but there is considerable cross over between the branches: a number of units who advertise they can do fieldwork also act as consultants and specialists early in their careers may also do fieldwork.

As to the CPD, I am in favour of 'on the job' training certainly, but why can't university courses make allowances for sandwich years with units or consultancies etc. This is commonplace with other professions who archaeologists deal with (engineers, environmental consultants spring to mind), and would be relatively simple to implement. Certainly a number of university courses already require placements as part of the degree completion requirements, this would just be a more involved extention.

[1man1desk]

Barnesy,

I agree that the universities could solve this issue themselves, but they don't seem to be doing so, so I was looking for a solution that did not depend on them.

I know that some unis do use placements; in fact, it was while interviewing students for a possible placement with my company that I first became aware of how badly the unis cover this area. In an interview for work with a consultancy company, none of the student interviewees knew what PPG16 was or had heard of either the concept of planning permission or Environmental Impact Assessment.

In any case, a placement only teaches you about one branch of the profession. If you do a placement with a unit, and then go off to work as a field archaeologist, you can do so without any real idea what a curator or a consultant is.

Any on-the-job CPD type training should complement rather than conflict anything done by the unis, but would still work even if they do nothing.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Cautionary Tale]

Eek. I have to confess to not having dealt with a graduate who was unaware of PPG16. I have been spoilt with the standard of my diggers.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

I am in favour of 'on the job' training certainly, but why can't university courses make allowances for sandwich years with units or consultancies etc. This is commonplace with other professions who archaeologists deal with (engineers, environmental consultants spring to mind), and would be relatively simple to implement.

It's been a long time since I was a student and although it wasn't (and I presume still isn't) compulsory, Bradford has always offered a four year degree course with a sandwich/placement year. I must add at this point, that I chose not to take the placement option as I'd already got quite a lot of experience by the time I got there, however, I have regretted it ever since. It would have been a great oportunity to get experience in something else like SMR/HER work or consultancy (very new at the time).

S

[Sith]

Ops! I'm not sure what's going on but this thread seems to be cloned from the original "Starting afresh" one.

S

[?]

[troll]

Plenty of room Sith....
Anyone thought of offering degrees in:
1.archaeological curatorship
2.heritage consultancy
3.BA/BSc ceramic/metallic/lithic etc analysis
4.archaeological draughtmanship (his/her)
5.archaeological geofizz
6.archaeological law
[?][?][?]
p.s Good to see that Bournemouth University are offering degrees in Field Archaeology!

[troll]

Tiz a good thing-have heard of the course and have heard good reviews. Only problem I can see is that hapless students will have to go and get into another 8 grand or so debt. Whilst the MSc is a good idea-why are undergrad degrees not tuned to specific career routes?:DI also believe it may be time for internships-increasing a 3 year undergrad to 4.

[omnsdigger]

Beer beast your point well made. I wonder how many students have a speciality in mind even after 2years. Could be part of the problem or lack of discussion with tutors? :(

omnsd

[eggbasket]

Hmm, missed this one before. I also do not see how students can be expected to know what they really want while doing their first degree. It's only at the post-grad level that you start to specialise and I am inclined to say that that is how it should stay. But the first degree really does need to make students aware of their options, and that is where my thoughts expressed on the other thread fit in. If commercial archaeologists are engaged in the academic world, they can help to make students aware and the students can then make an informed decision. On the other hand, universities seem to be uniformly useless at providing career advice so I hold out little hope at the moment.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antiquarian

Manners maketh the man

[Cautionary Tale]

I seem to remember having guest lectures from unit directors at Bournemouth while I was there doing my degree, and I think realistically this is a good place to start. If each units could afford to lend a PO for one hour to the nearest uni course, there could be a nice flow of real world archaeological info coming into the academics/field archaeologists of the morrow. Most units, and certainly RAOs, should be geared up for some sort of outreach so this shouldn't be too complicated....

(I really have worked in the field[:0])

[RedEarth]

'I've just logged on after an absence of some days.

Slightly depressing really - a new thread with a positive, forward-looking approach; it's been here 4 days, over 100 people have read it, and not one response.'

Sorry - not used to this lark yet and hadn't realised that this topic was started in response to mine: 'So called archaeologists'. I'll go and respond on that thread to boost the numbers, although I'm sure no-one will notice.

[deepdigger]

I did!!

deep

[1man1desk]

Actually, RedEarth, I think you'll find that this thread pre-dates yours by a month or so.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[RedEarth]

'Actually, RedEarth, I think you'll find that this thread pre-dates yours by a month or so.'

Eventually I might get to grips with this whole forum concept...:) I've actually mentioned the problems with coherently commenting on/criticising/discussing issues within archaeology through forms such as this under 'So-called archaeologists'.

[AHERO]

I totally agree that universities devote little time to informing students about possible career options. I graduated two and a half years ago and it wasnt until i started working in professional archaeology that I found out archaeological consultancies existed and that many offered graduate schemes. I wish I had been made aware of this at university as this is an area I have been keen to get in to. As it is, I am now in the inbetween stage where I am no longer a graduate but do not have enough experience to join a consultancy at the level most are looking for (five years plus experience).

[Cautionary Tale]

Don't restrict your employment opportunities so quickly. There are consultancies who advertise for/take on trainees as well as graduates where experience requirements are not as onerous. money may not be too hot (in consultancy terms), but it is an access route.

Of the Clan Sutton

[1man1desk]

AHERO,

I am a senior manager in a consultancy firm, and regularly involved in recruiting. We would be more likely to take on someone in your position than a raw graduate straight from Uni.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[star-nosed mole]

Totally agree with all said so far. Yes, university archaeology departments do need to spend more time 'training' people for a career in archaeology (how to use an SMR, PPG16, law, planning etc) but unfortunately the universities have very little power to do this at an undergraduate level (although some like Bradford do it) :(.

Departments are under more and more pressure to provide students with 'cross-transferable skills' - i.e. people can do an archaeology degree and then go off and have a completely different career. It is therefore at the postgraduate level, not undergraduate, when this training must take place. People will have already decided that archaeology is for them, but need more training, experience, and contacts to help them on their way.

Courses like the Oxford MSc Professional Archaeology are an excellent way of doing this. It enables you to have 3 three-month placements with different archaeological organisations (units, EH, local authorities, IFA, museums, academic departments etc). The course is available full-time and part-time. Both can be expensive (Oxford like to charge you extra just cos they're Oxford) but as Beer Beast said, there are grants etc. available if you ask enough (as an ex-graduate of this course with AHRB funding to do it I should know).

Sounds great and other unis should join in.... BUT (here's the bombshell [:0]) there is only ONE full-time person registered on this course this year - WHY?

Perhaps it is the cost, perhaps the department don't publicise it enough, perhaps it is not aimed clearly enough at undergrads who want to work in archaeology but need a little more experience. Any other ideas?

[rachstebbs]

This discussion keeps coming up and really needs to be addressed. Any ideas or input for a paper at the conference? [?]

Now for my opinion (again!):D I do agree with star-nosed mole that universities need to offer more training and that it is at post-grad level it will probably be taught, BUT how can you have an undergraduate degree in archaeology and not know what an SMR is?! (surely it should have been consulted for most dissertations anyway?!) Why should we expect to be employed if we can't say what the law surrounding the profession is?[:I]
As much as I agree units and archaeological organisations should contribute to training, whether that be taking on placement students or offering training places, at the end of the day I pay my fees to the university. Research and academia have their place in the grand scheme of things, they are vital to this profession. BUT the majority of students who go on to have a career in archaeology will not be sat writing papers and books, which is what the universities seem to be preparing us for. If it wasn't for my placements, I wouldn't know how an SMR worked, what PPG16 was, or that commercial archaeology is nothing like the pottering about you do at university...
I'm not expecting to graduate knowing everything there is to know about working in archaeology, but I should at least know the basics of the profession.

[the invisible man]

I agree Rach. These things are really very basic and should be covered at undergrad level - I assumed they were done in year 1, to be honest! What was that funny thing about a shed on Shetland all about then? (I joined at year 2 you see). I seem to recall they were even covered, albeit briefly, in the extra-mural certificate and diploma courses I did some years ago.

Bear in mind Rach that the single module in CRM at Bradders is done in the final year - after your placement. I don't recall any mention of SMR's though and PPG16 got one lecture.

I would hope that the Oxford MSc offers a bit more than an introduction to SMR for that money!



We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[rachstebbs]

There is the (very) odd mention of SMR, but just a fleeting reference, no information about how you get information from it or indeed where it is usually kept. I've heard about the CRM module, and have been told its fine if you have done a placement, because you already know what they are talking about. If you're going in cold it can get dull and confusing! No idea about Shetland, I stuck to Wales!
I am very tempted by the Oxford MSc, and there is a similar one at Sussex which sounds very interesting, but haven't met anyone who has done it there yet. Only problem is the finance, think if I started a collection now I would have enough by time I graduate next summer!;):D

[the invisible man]

Be warned, it is expensive though. The extra fees SNM spoke of is a college fee on top of the normal tuition fee (you have to belong to a college) and is not cheap - a couple of grand I think. I have anidea it adds up to 4 or 5 big 'uns (please someone correct me if I'm wrong, it's a while since I flirted with the idea).

You can do it part time over 2 years if you are working in archaeology, or you do those placements if you do it full time (1 year).

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[disheartened]

Thinking back on my first year in bradford, a few years ago now, we had to do a group project, which I think was in a module called Monuments and Landscape (?). What I recall from the hazy days was that it was basically a group desktop evaluation of a site, I think it may have been a deserted medieval village site, which definitely involved using local SMRs. Did you not have anything like that?

[mercenary]

Keep in mind that universities are working in a market for students and if they are not preparing students for work after uni they are not doing their job.

I know I'm going to get flack now from those who hang on to the belief that education is to educate the mind and not to learn job skills, but back in the 21st century it is clear that a number of students and former students on this forum feel they have been let down by their uni's.

At TAG 2 years ago there was a supposed discussion about this very subject, and I've never seen such a spectacular back-slapping, point missing spectacle as that put on by the university leaders. The students and professionals made it very clear that they wanted better preparation for the working world. The academics didn't agree.

It should be pretty easy to inform potential students to the universities that are willing to train students properly. This thread is a case in point. Bradford seems to come out quite well, and I'm sure it has influenced prospective students. Maybe we should have a regular thread entitled "so you've decided to waste your life in archaeology, where can you at least get trained properly?";)

[rachstebbs]

Monuments and Landscapes didn't teach much at all, yes there is a project like that but we had lots of people in our group and so everyone had a different 'job' to do. the only mention of the SMR I can recall is that we put it on a list of things we would look at if we were doing a real desktop evaluation. The main aim of the exercise appeared to be to teach us how to budget money...
Bradford does appear to be one of the best for practical training, but only if you choose to do the placement. They do offer specialist modules too, which are excellent if you choose to go into a sciency aspect of archaeology. It does make me think, though that the league tables which put them 18/25 are utter BS. Bournemouth is 24th... Anyone else thinking that in 10 years time we will have thousands of academics running round and about 3 diggers.... We have to get this issue addressed soon!:D

[star-nosed mole]

Yep, Invisible your memory serves you correctly - is about 4-5 big uns and that's before you start trying to live anywhere near Oxford!

From my Sheffield experience, we did get a module called post-ex in the 3rd year, when we learnt about basic law, smrs, english heritage, jobs, boxes (yes...boxes) in museums etc. So pretty good on that front, but not much actual practical visiting SMR etc. We were taught (v. briefly) how to write a desk-top report too... most people did quite badly I recall!

I think that the people who know they really want to get stuck in do it outside of uni anyway - volunteer on sites, get a commercial job in the hols, use the SMR for their dissertation etc.

[rachstebbs]

quote:Originally posted by star-nosed mole
I think that the people who know they really want to get stuck in do it outside of uni anyway - volunteer on sites, get a commercial job in the hols, use the SMR for their dissertation etc.

Yeah most people do get stuck in and volunteer outside uni if they want a career. However the point is we shouldn't have do that to learn the basics. Why should I come out of uni after 4 years nearly £15,000 in debt and then have to learn the real aspects of the job and the day to day practicalities? I really think most students are being failed, because they just don't get taught the right stuff.:(

BTW this is not aimed at any universities in particular, its a sweeping generalisation!:D;)

[1man1desk]

quote:Originally posted by star-nosed mole
I think that the people who know they really want to get stuck in do it outside of uni anyway - volunteer on sites, get a commercial job in the hols, use the SMR for their dissertation etc

Of course, that only gives people access to certain parts of the profession, and doesn't really give them much idea about the range of careers available in archaeology or what is involved in those careers.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished