6th September 2012, 02:03 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:Running joke at the time that when I started at Durham Uni in 1980 none of the lecturers had an archaeology degree (they had to give Prof Cramp one retrospectively after she retired, for instance)......so what? I certainly didn't learn anything much from my course that has had even remote relevence to my subsequent career hitting things with a mattock
I wasn't necessarily querying the quality of a degree, but the fact is that you do have one and as such can write it on your CV. Likewise the staff at Durham in 1980 may have been lacking archaeology degrees, but I am guessing that they had degrees in other subjects.....I should profess a long standing interest in the subject of degree or non-degree archaeologists, dating back to my earliest days in the profession. I had the opportunity to meet Basil Brown and was told the story of how he had discovered the Sutton Hoo ship but was sidelined from the excavation because he had no formal education in the subject. I thought at the time that didn't seem right and then of course MSC happened and it seemed to offer opportunities for a greater involvement in archaeology by non-degree educated folk, but I am not sure that wasn't just a small blip in the space-time continuum and really archaeology always was a reserve of the university educated. My query here was really to find out whether those who had entered the profession through a non-academic background had managed to survive or whether they had gained formal qualifications later in life.
The aim wasn't to suggest that one or other way is the better or whether a degree is any use, just as to whether people jumped through the academic hoops or not. I am guessing Dinosaur that you started in archaeology as a 'non-academician', so why did you initially/eventually take the trip to Durham?
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...