Although it makes for an interesting read, the Guardian Tables only take into account fairly basic variables. Regional differences in career prospects can adversely skew data sets like this. The assay doesn`t ask where graduates are now and how they got there for example.Just seems to be a collection of "mechanical" factoids that outline the basics of what is after all, a very complex mosaic of standards and trajectories.
"Training" is something that we have banged on about for years and I feel that the simple solution would be to follow the example of say- The University of Bradford who require one years practical experience as an integral component of the undergraduate degree. Surely, if Archaeology as a discipline adopted training/internship policies similar to those of the Architects (discussed above) then the Graduates would get more value for their money and the profession on the whole would ....well, get more value...for money. It just seems to me that inventing new schemes with fancy names can be a distraction: What we are looking for ideally, is a degree that produces informed, thinking, motivated and competent practitioners. Such a mythical beast usually hails from one of two main trajectories- those who chose(coherently) against University debt and have "done the job for years" or, those who choose the University path and emerge greener than flu snot.
There is huge scope for the integration of training assets in the UK. Back to the League Table...... I`m still not happy with it simply because its not enough. As a general rule of thumb for an average reader I suppose its ok but it doesn`t paint a full enough picture. Fancy designing a questionnaire anyone?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Guardian Archaeology League Table
