30th March 2014, 11:47 AM
Think you've got it spot on there. Not that I have a problem with degrees like that per se. I studied history, and loved it, and studying at that level does encourage a way of thinking and understanding the world which is valuable To my way of thinking should be being made more accessible rather than less so, but that's a political problem, not an archaeological one!. The problem lies in recognising exactly what a degree (of any kind) does actually provide, and whether that is essential, desirable or relevant to particular aspects of our industry. So, it looks like to be a field archaeologist a degree (although not necessarily an archaeology degree) is desirable but by no means essential, and therefore having one should never be an absolute requirement to work in the industry, and so by extension should not be essential for being a member of the IfA.
I would add that I do wonder if not having experienced studying the subject at uni may allow a certain degree of open-mindedness, an ability to look at a problem from different directions, that may be missing if you've been subjected to the biases of whichever uni you've attended?
I would add that I do wonder if not having experienced studying the subject at uni may allow a certain degree of open-mindedness, an ability to look at a problem from different directions, that may be missing if you've been subjected to the biases of whichever uni you've attended?
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.