16th November 2005, 12:09 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll New grads who worked on site given first real taste of how our wonderful little system "works".New grads are becomming aware very quickly.........
I have been weighing up some of the advantages and disadvantages of archaeology and degrees. (and please, please, please treat this is a matter of muse rather than a statement of intent....)
We are in a profession where most people accept the wages are poor and career prospects limited. The modern collegiate system leaves graduates thousands of pounds in debt before they even begin to work. University takes up three years. At the lowest level of minimal archaeological pay that equals a loss of circa ?40,000 in wages and maybe ?10-15,000 of student debt. This discussion has to date suggested that most graduates come into the 'profession' ill- equipped for the needs of the job.
We could start again. Drop the need for an archaeological degree and introduce an archaeological apprenticeship for school leavers aged 18. One day a week, day release paid for by the firm leading towards a Certificate of Competence/NVQ after three years. End result, trained workers, debt free at the age of 21 and with a qualification based upon practical competence. Can anyone tell me why that wouldn't work? Can anyone say why it would be less advanatageous that a degree?
I am not suggesting that there shouldn't be archaeology degrees for people who want to get into merchant banking, marry into the royal family or appear on Sunday afternoon TV, just that there ought to be a practical low cost alternative more suited to the needs of the profession. And in line with modern apprenticeships, in the building trade for example, one paid for by the employers rather than the employees.