27th June 2011, 06:30 PM
It's also the case that the degree as currently structures gives you the opportunity to take specific classes in either areas that particularly interest you, or that you think would be useful in finding the type of job you hope to get. In my undergraduate degree, I took a mixture of classes, some looking at the archaeology of the particular period or region, which could be classed as being primarily for interest, some for more pragmatic reasons. Into the latter category, I'd put things like planning legislation, IT, and survey techniques - perhaps not the most exciting or glamourous, but areas that I thought would be useful. There was a requirement to complete a certain amount of fieldwork. Although the minimum was fairly low, it was obviously beneficial to do as much as possible, so I did. The degree offers the scope for the individual to tailor their learning to their own requirements and aims, which I think can only be a good thing. To a certain extent, it works in the other direction too, in that it's the responsibility of the student to select those classes that best equip them to work in their chosen field - if you think you'd like to work in commercial archaeology, you should be looking at those classes that are more practical, if you want to specialise in pottery of a particular period, take classes on that. Although everyone may come out with the same qualification, the range of classes or modules available on most degree courses means that the skills or knowledge of individual students may be vastly different.
On a less serious note, I'm also not convinced that learning GIS is the passport to a job that it once was. It now seems fairly commonplace for archaeology students to have at least a grasp of the basics, and this is likely to be replicated in other disciplines, meaning that there will be more competition for any GIS-based jobs that come up. I'm not suggesting it's not a useful thing to learn, because it obviously is, but I wouldn't necessarily base any career assumptions on that alone!
On a less serious note, I'm also not convinced that learning GIS is the passport to a job that it once was. It now seems fairly commonplace for archaeology students to have at least a grasp of the basics, and this is likely to be replicated in other disciplines, meaning that there will be more competition for any GIS-based jobs that come up. I'm not suggesting it's not a useful thing to learn, because it obviously is, but I wouldn't necessarily base any career assumptions on that alone!
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum