22nd February 2013, 01:22 PM
Doug your numbers include Forensics Science students,according to UCAs there are around 500 Undergrads doing single hons BA in archaeologyand about 250 BSc, but that does not include duel Honâs students (the bread andbutter of many departments). But your right the numbers has not been affectedby fees. One of the problems facing archaeology departments as nicelyillustrated in this piece posted by BAJR is that elite Universities are puttingpressure on recruiters to up entry grades so they can move up the national and internationalleague tables, then attract better students, more endowments, more researchmoney, and better staff... in theory.
Now with a fixed pool of letâs say 750 single honsstudents only about 200 or so of these are AAB students in any given year, andso departments in elite universities who are forced to put their grades up to aroundABB or AAB are in fiercer competition for the same small group. Those in the middlethe BBB students can no longer find a home unless they want to go to newerinstitutions asking for BCC, and many will do other subjects instead so theycan go to the âbestâ institution their results will allow. These means some Russellgroup universities are ok â Oxford, Cambridge, Durham because of reputation theywill always attract good students and ironically at least two of these institutionsdonât need undergraduate to survive â but places like Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield,Bristol and Exeter are going to struggle under this system, unless archaeologycan acquire what the author describes as a protected status and so they can continueto recruit from the usual pool without affecting the overall university rankings.
Red Brick or new universities are in a slightly betterposition, but may be less attractive to the particular set of middle class studentsthat you find in the class room but rarely in the field. These universities nowhave a bigger pool of students to recruit from but less access to researchmonies to fund projects like excavation, and they tend to be aspirational placeslooking to move up into the Russell group by putting a lot of pressure on theirstaff (they also have to spend more time with their students to get the same results).
In the past the most ingenuity has come from the metaphoricalbottom of the pile, those who have to work harder to recruit students and keeptheir jobs/courses open. That will have to change and more ingenuity will needto be brought in at the top of the landscape â more stuff like Richard III - orRussell group institutions will close departments or streamline them and mergethem into mixed subject faculties and other larger less flexible units, â all thingsbeing equal we may simply see a more even spread of archaeology courses acrossthe variety of universities and the loss though retirement and forced retirementof many very expensive professors.
Oddly this change might actually be good for archaeology asa whole, as the newer institutions tend to put more emphasis on practicalskills ect, but none the less Universities are places of education, training shouldbe done in the workplace.
Now with a fixed pool of letâs say 750 single honsstudents only about 200 or so of these are AAB students in any given year, andso departments in elite universities who are forced to put their grades up to aroundABB or AAB are in fiercer competition for the same small group. Those in the middlethe BBB students can no longer find a home unless they want to go to newerinstitutions asking for BCC, and many will do other subjects instead so theycan go to the âbestâ institution their results will allow. These means some Russellgroup universities are ok â Oxford, Cambridge, Durham because of reputation theywill always attract good students and ironically at least two of these institutionsdonât need undergraduate to survive â but places like Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield,Bristol and Exeter are going to struggle under this system, unless archaeologycan acquire what the author describes as a protected status and so they can continueto recruit from the usual pool without affecting the overall university rankings.
Red Brick or new universities are in a slightly betterposition, but may be less attractive to the particular set of middle class studentsthat you find in the class room but rarely in the field. These universities nowhave a bigger pool of students to recruit from but less access to researchmonies to fund projects like excavation, and they tend to be aspirational placeslooking to move up into the Russell group by putting a lot of pressure on theirstaff (they also have to spend more time with their students to get the same results).
In the past the most ingenuity has come from the metaphoricalbottom of the pile, those who have to work harder to recruit students and keeptheir jobs/courses open. That will have to change and more ingenuity will needto be brought in at the top of the landscape â more stuff like Richard III - orRussell group institutions will close departments or streamline them and mergethem into mixed subject faculties and other larger less flexible units, â all thingsbeing equal we may simply see a more even spread of archaeology courses acrossthe variety of universities and the loss though retirement and forced retirementof many very expensive professors.
Oddly this change might actually be good for archaeology asa whole, as the newer institutions tend to put more emphasis on practicalskills ect, but none the less Universities are places of education, training shouldbe done in the workplace.