+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: General Rant! (/showthread.php?tid=3984)
General Rant! - Marcus Brody - 27th June 2011
You're right about the desirability of choice within degree courses to allow students to select their own classes according to their interests and ambitions. I agree that the availability of advice on career options is vital for students. And I also agree that both of these aspects could be improved in a lot of degree courses, without necessarily moving to the model of a degree focussing solely on producing staff for commercial contractors (which was what I originally thought you were suggesting, though I appreciate that I may have picked that up wrong).
I also take your point about the greater financial consequences of choosing the wrong course; ?30,000 would be a lot of money for anyone to spend on a degree that may not provide students with the necessary skills to work in the area they want. There are two possible outcomes / solutions that I could see developing to address this:
1. it’s possible that there may be a move away from the requirement for all people working on commercial sites to have a degree. This would be hard on recent graduates, who've had to pay out to get a qualification that may not be necessary to do the jobs they apply for, but as you said, it would be a lot of money to lay out on the expectation of possibly getting a job that may never pay above the threshold for repayment of fees. In this scenario, contracting companies may take more responsibility for in-house on-site training, to equip people with the particular range of skills needed to work in the commercial environment. This would provide an alternative path into archaeology, one which, as was noted above, hasn't really been available for the last 10 or 15years.
2. it’s also possible that all archaeology courses may not charge the top rate of fees. I know that a lot of institutions will in the first year or so,to test the water and see what they can get away with (market testing, or some such nonsense). If, as seems likely, this results in a reduction in student numbers, we may start to see a related reduction in fees to up the numbers and keep academic staff in jobs. They'll need to look at balancing individual charge-per-head against total income per course to see what offers the bes tresult in terms of revenue. It's unlikely that many places will be able to fill their full quota for archaeology students at ?9000 per year, so a situation may arise where there's a degree (excuse the pun) of competitive discounting. Whether such a commercial market is desirable in the education sector is a different matter, of course.
General Rant! - Doug - 27th June 2011
I like your suggestions and it may be that 1. comes to pass not out of any planning but the simple fact that with the increase in fees there will be fewer archaeology students or not enough to fill the ranks of commercial units. Time will tell.
2. I think would be a better alternative but I am not sure if that will happen. It seems that most uni's are raising their fees across the board and individual departments, schools, colleges, etc. do not have much control. That may not be the case in the future but at least for next year there will not be that flexibility.
A long shot but one that would be interesting is that archaeology departments move outside of uni's:face-stir:. That could be into colleges or even stand alone institutes or maybe even further down the education chain or into EH HS Cadw etc. A situation were they are not tied to the fee structure of large univsities that cover such a wide range of degrees. Not sure if archaeology departments are being subsidized by other departments or if we are subsidizing other departments. If the latter is true then it would be a lot more simple to declare independence.
Wishful thinking probably
General Rant! - Kel - 27th June 2011
Quote:If, as seems likely, this results in a reduction in student numbers, we may start to see a related reduction in fees to up the numbers and keep academic staff in jobs. They'll need to look at balancing individual charge-per-head against total income per course to see what offers the bes tresult in terms of revenue. It's unlikely that many places will be able to fill their full quota for archaeology students at ?9000 per year, so a situation may arise where there's a degree (excuse the pun) of competitive discounting.The most likely outcome of that scenario, is that archaeology courses will be axed in favour of expanding existing subjects which are "easy" to fill with top-whack fee paying students. Uni bean-counters are looking for ways to shed academic staff, not keep them. So overall, there will be fewer untrained archaeology graduates to muddy the waters of the commercial sector, which sounds like it'll make life easier for all concerned.
General Rant! - trowelfodder - 27th June 2011
As harsh as it is archaeology is market driven and if too many people are trained then there will not be enough jobs to go around and some people won't get jobs!
But it is also worth noting that the many archaeology graduates have no intention of pursuing a career in the field, and I imagine that it is these students who will be likely to drop out first
General Rant! - kevin wooldridge - 27th June 2011
If the source of UK archaeology students dries up I am sure there will be plenty of takers from the rest of Europe ready and willing to step into all those job vacancies. And of course as most of those folk will come from countries where tertiary education is still free or heavily subsidised, they will be able to afford to work for less and still see more money in their hand at the end of the day!!
My argument against those who say you don't need a degree to do archaeology also looks towards the bigger European and world employment market. I am not really concerned with the narrow system or conditions operating in parts of the UK (and my argument isn't a slur against capable practitioners who are degree-less but still fine archaeologists). It is this. There are many countries outside of the UK where you wouldn't be even considered for employment as an archaeologist without an undergraduate degree, quite often, as here in Scandinavia, a Masters is the minimum and I know of several institutes where doctorates are de rigeur for all permanent posts. Of course many people are content with working just in the UK, but with the current downturn, I know more and more Brit archies are testing the waters abroad.....and you really need a degree to do that (or a lot of chutzpah if you don't!!). Studying abroad particularly in Europe, is also much cheaper for British students than it is to study at home. I can see the day when archaeology might well be taught at the big 6 UK universities only to a small exclusive student base and most UK based practitioners of the field arts learn their university lessons abroad....
General Rant! - kevin wooldridge - 28th June 2011
... and this, from today's Guardian, would seem to herald the end of archaeology as a single honours subject at English universities
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/28/naming-shaming-degrees-poor-jobs-record
General Rant! - Marcus Brody - 28th June 2011
Kel Wrote:The most likely outcome of that scenario, is that archaeology courses will be axed in favour of expanding existing subjects which are "easy" to fill with top-whack fee paying students. Uni bean-counters are looking for ways to shed academic staff, not keep them.
Unfortunately, I fear you may be right about this, and that the end result will be a lot of institutions churning out graduates with degrees in a limited range of subjects (law, accountancy, medicine, business, computing etc) that enable students to get well-paid jobs.
General Rant! - Odinn - 28th June 2011
Marcus Brody Wrote:Unfortunately, I fear you may be right about this, and that the end result will be a lot of institutions churning out graduates with degrees in a limited range of subjects (law, accountancy, medicine, business, computing etc) that enable students to get well-paid jobs.It's all a bit scary really that the only criterion for keeping a degree course seems to be whether you can earn piles of dosh once you have done it and I can clearly envisage a future with the tiny range of degrees that you list. It does not bode well for society though.
General Rant! - Odinn - 28th June 2011
Doug Wrote:First, I question if a university really provides you with "abstract reasoning skills". Really, did we not have them before we went to university? Do people who do not go to university not have them?The critical thinking skills I was talking about are a learned skill, not an innate part of everyone's make-up. Some people will be better at it and may have learnt these skills at an earlier age or have developed them through their everyday work but university education develops and hones these skills more closely because it focuses on doing that. I started to see this very clearly when, after twenty years in the field, I moved to become a university tutor a couple of years back. The difference between my first year undergraduates when compared with my second years, for example, is quite marked. The latter have clearly developed their critical thinking skills considerably over the period of just one year, and I bet that few of them even realise what they have learnt. This is not to say that they could not develop those same skills in the wild, and it is obvious when you meet people that some do, but the university training is more intensive and more focused.
Quote:That being said would it not be better if while learning "abstract reasoning skills" you also gain skills that could help you in archaeology or other fields? Call it a two for one deal.Works for me as long as the content conforms to academic standards.
General Rant! - Doug - 28th June 2011
:face-stir: here so please do not be offended.
How do you define "critical thinking"? Could it not be that between your 1st and 2nd yrs the difference is not thinking but that they have had a whole year to adapt to the system. That what they are producing is not so much critical thinking as a rehash of what you teach them being spoken/read/presented back to you only more polished then before.
Now I am not saying that rehashing does not cause someone to learn but the track record of such a form of teaching is horrendously poor.
Also, it is when most students leave home and strike out on their own. Could those experiences not be driving their changing in thinking? Could this be a hidden variable that makes it seem like people are growing at university but really to teach critical thinking we just need to kick people out of the home?
Again just :face-stir: