This discussion has covered quite a few of my pet topics. 

In Australia the basic qualification is a BA (Hons) which means that you have completed undergraduate courses and spent a year undertaking an independent research project, done some advanced courses and tried to look alert through all the Departments weekly seminars. In my experience working with graduates from the USA this equates to being an MA.

However the real issue is what is taught. My experience is that the teaching is orientated to the students progressing to higher degrees rather than the majority of students who will go on to work either in Government or in CRM. There is little attempt to teach professional practice or other relevant skills (such as report writing). Requirements for field work experience are minimal and often orientated around supplying slaves for University digs rather than making sure students have experience in a broad a set of skills (eg learning to take photos, section drawing, field walking, site recording).

The Universities claim not to teach vocations and in any case are being dummed down and strangled for funds. Moreover students are left in no doubt that not being in the "academic" stream means they are in some way second best.

Thus armed with their piece of paper, many students then set up shop as professional archaeologists with no idea of how to cost jobs, their O.H. & S. obligations, the legislation they are working under, let alone having as set professional skills and experience that would satisfy enquiry under the Trade Practices Act. This is often not the fault of the archaeologist they genuinely don't know these things.

For those who survive there is often little incentive for continuing professional education such as a professional engineer would have to do. In fact there are distressingly few opportunities for professional education. There are MA's in Heritage which at least would help the new graduate to broaden their horizons.

There are consulting companies that take their reasonability's for professional education, practice and OH & S  seriously. These are at the top end of the market because all these things cost money. In a market where there is a real imperative to cut costs, the "backyard" archaeologist will prevail because they are cheaper, don't complain about working conditions, are easily intimidated and will be left wearing the costs (financial and often in health terms) if something goes wrong.

Perhaps in order to understand why this occurs, we should turn to one of Paul Courtney's German academics, albeit a British resident whose life's work far from being irrelevant or disproven offers interesting insights into the world of capitalism.

Iain Stuart

[log in to unmask]