>John P. Staeck
 wrote:
><<I am concerned that toomany times the bottom line must come before
>the recovery, preservation, and interpretation of data.  To really tick off
>some people, I have the same concerns (though to a much lesser extent) with
>CRM and, in general, all consulting for a living.  Ethics and
>responsibilities must be (and usually are) high.  Thus, the degree is not
>the question but the proper and acceptable procedures are.
>
>Of course, we can typically argue that degrees are designed to teach us
>these things and I would dare to suggest that there is a higher percentage
>of degreed individuals who fully comprehend these issues than there is a
>percentage of non-degreed people who do.  This isn't a function of elitism
>but of training - non-degreed individuals learn by doing, and time is
telling here. >>
 
Don't we all have a bottom line? My experience in academia was that the
bottom line (the "treasure") for some of the most degreed was to succeed
in their field-- at any cost, all ethics aside. I haven't found CRM,
with its financial bottom line, to be any less ethical than what I
experienced as a graduate student in academic, research-driven
archaeology.
 
I did learn a lot about the interpretaion of data in graduate school,
and I'm glad I have that theoretical background to help deal with a
variety of sites. I was taught little about recovery and nothing about
preservation. Finally, my experience was that an anthropology department
is a place where one is least likely to be taught ethics. In these last
>areas, most of us only learn by doing- and perhaps that is the only way.