31st January 2011, 09:00 PM
Must admit I do like the model of a four year degree that includes a year's placement in a commercial environment. Unfortunately that would result in thousands of undergrads effectively working for free in an industry that already isn't able to provide enough (meagre) paid employment to the masses of existing professional archaeologists. Not sure how it would work unless there was funding for MSC-type research projects, specifically for the purpose, funded by...er... someone. And TBH I'm still not convinced that would give a sufficiently commercial-type experience.
It's a shame that the NVQ seems to be falling flat and that one-year Foundation Certificates are being axed (where I am, anyway). From an employer's point of view, I can see that they need some way of judging the commitment and enthusiasm of someone seeking their first job, when they're too young to have a portfolio of commercial work to review.
Some sort of induction training on the job would be the next step - this is how it seemed to generally work in the IT/finance industries where I've previously worked. Very few companies would take on fresh graduates without bunging them through some sort of graduate programme. They were rarely let loose in the working environment without something like this and when they were, they shadowed people and were mentored for six months before being allocated a permanent role. However, that process would involve already having hired the person - a big ask in archaeology, when an employer can already call on an experienced workforce that has manpower to spare. Why spend six months getting a fresh graduate up to speed? Especially when short-term or fixed contracts are common and you can expect your "investment" to walk out of your door and possibly into the arms of a competitor.
Subject to being swayed by further discussion, I'm of the opinion that getting a degree in archaeology is worth it, simply because this is the de facto baseline measurement currently used by the industry (we think). It probably isn't a good one, but it is the only one until an alternative is found. And as the workforce is already over-subscribed, there isn't a driver for anyone to do that.
It's a shame that the NVQ seems to be falling flat and that one-year Foundation Certificates are being axed (where I am, anyway). From an employer's point of view, I can see that they need some way of judging the commitment and enthusiasm of someone seeking their first job, when they're too young to have a portfolio of commercial work to review.
Some sort of induction training on the job would be the next step - this is how it seemed to generally work in the IT/finance industries where I've previously worked. Very few companies would take on fresh graduates without bunging them through some sort of graduate programme. They were rarely let loose in the working environment without something like this and when they were, they shadowed people and were mentored for six months before being allocated a permanent role. However, that process would involve already having hired the person - a big ask in archaeology, when an employer can already call on an experienced workforce that has manpower to spare. Why spend six months getting a fresh graduate up to speed? Especially when short-term or fixed contracts are common and you can expect your "investment" to walk out of your door and possibly into the arms of a competitor.
Subject to being swayed by further discussion, I'm of the opinion that getting a degree in archaeology is worth it, simply because this is the de facto baseline measurement currently used by the industry (we think). It probably isn't a good one, but it is the only one until an alternative is found. And as the workforce is already over-subscribed, there isn't a driver for anyone to do that.