by Clare Burke

In the bleak winter of 2010, the government put forward plans to raise the fees of undergraduate higher education from just over £3000 to up to £9000, with the expectation that the majority of institutions would charge around the £7000 mark.

To those of us who watched in horror, it was inevitable that most universities would rush towards the £9000 price bracket, not wanting to appear as the cheaper, low quality alternative.

With arts funding decimated by the government in a bid to drive science and technology based industry and training, those of us studying archaeology have been left to question the value of our degree. Are students now simply cash cows for institutions? Where do their fees go? If science and technology is so heavily funded what does that mean for other faculties and departments? Is knowledge simply a consumable? And does a degree have to be job training? We would be really interested in what you all think. What do you think of this in comparison to the American system?

Below are the opinions of two archaeologists at different stages of their career, discussing what these fee rises mean for the future of archaeology.

Lizzie Wright -current PhD student at the University of Sheffield

 The latest round of funding cuts and the increase of fees for university students represents a unsubtle move by the government towards the complete marketisation of our higher education system. This is an extremely worrying time for the Arts and Humanities, as we face the largest cuts of all research areas, and therefore an implication that what we study is of little worth. Our work is increasingly judged by financial gain, and less on the core of what it is to study an Arts and Humanities subject, that is: what it means to be human, and the critical reflection on aspects of human society and culture in the past, present and future.

In archaeology we study past societies, economies, political systems and religions. Those of us who study in these areas probably have a better idea of how states were initially formed and maintained than many of our politicians. We are in a position to highlight times and places in the past where systems different to our own have been successful. Our study of past human societies provides us with a privileged perspective on the problems that we face in the present. We therefore have the capacity to question what is happening in the modern day, and to suggest alternatives.

The introduction of fees up to £9000 is naturally going to force school students into making some very difficult decisions. The ideal of studying what you are really interested in will fall by the wayside. Do you study archaeology and risk never being able to pay back your fees (and a life in relative poverty)? Or do you go and study chemistry or economics and land a job where you will immediately earn over the £21,000 per year threshold? The system is designed to make people think of the financial outcome of this decision and is therefore now stacked against those people who want to study archaeology. It will now be considered ‘risky’ to study archaeology, unless you are fortunate to come from a wealthy background.

In addition to this idea of ‘risk’ is the imposition of ‘guilt’ on people who decide to study within the Arts and Humanities, through the implication that these subjects are somehow inferior and therefore deserve less funding because they aren’t researching the cure for cancer, or wind turbine technology. But what is not taken into account are the long term impacts of studying subjects which generate and instil creativity and empathy.

The lack of diversity which already exists within archaeology, and indeed all subjects within the Arts and Humanities, will be worsened. Those people from working class backgrounds who will have to fight to get a university place in the first place are not going to seemingly ‘throw it all away’ by coming and studying in the Arts and Humanities. The only people who will be able to afford to come and study in our subject areas are those from affluent backgrounds. Naturally the demographic of people that will come to study archaeology will be severely narrowed and this is detrimental to our subject area.

In addition to the cuts in university funding, commercial firms and local authorities are also being squeezed, or even axed, reducing the job prospects of archaeology graduates who wish to work in the field (go here to find details of heritage cuts: http://www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk/map4/). The way in which commercial firms are often forced to operate is a reflection of how archaeology does not function particularly well within an economy where making a profit is considered to be of the utmost importance. Time and cost effectiveness are at the forefront of projects, many of which cannot be done thoroughly within these constraints. We have already been forced to make too many concessions in our field, and our workers are frequently undervalued and exploited.

It is clear that an attempt is being made in order to devalue archaeology both in and outside of the higher education system. Or perhaps an attempt is being made to make archaeology appear less valuable? However, perhaps it is at this time that archaeology degrees are actually of more value. Those of us with archaeology degrees (as well as others within the Arts and Humanities) are in a powerful position, we are able to be critical and sceptical, and this is extremely important and valuable in our current political atmosphere.

If you share my view that the public spending cuts being implemented by the current government are ideologically driven (it is evident that the public spending cuts are unnecessary, for details go here: http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/about/cuts and here: http://johannhari.com/2011/03/29/the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics) then perhaps it is not a coincidence that they seem to be trying to destroy the subject areas which encourage people to question things and have empathy with other human beings.

If we want our subject to survive beyond nationalistic government schemes, research benefitting ‘the big society’ and sites dug improperly because of time and funding constraints, and if we want to continue to have students to teach, we need to make a stand. We are the ones that need to go out and get involved in outreach work – let’s get into school and community groups and inspire people to come and study archaeology, let’s get involved in politics, and provide an archaeologist’s point of view in every debate. For too long we have let governments and mangers walk all over us, and the fact is that archaeology as a diverse and fruitful area of research will be facing extinction if we don’t resist.

Craig Stewart - recent masters graduate.

2010 saw the most significant change to the funding of undergraduate study in the UK since the introduction of the 2004 Higher Education Bill, which provided UK universities the power to charge tuition fees of up to £3000. From the academic year of 2012, universities will see the tuition fee cap lifted to £9000, with repayments to commence after individual graduate earnings exceed £21000 per annum. The total repayable amount of £27000, not factoring in a further £16500 of student maintenance loans (outside London) for a three year course, could potentially have a profound effect on new student uptake in Archaeology.

The key point of concern with this change in funding is how it may effect the decisions of those would-be students who would seriously consider a post-university career in Archaeology. The limited earning power of archaeologists remains a consistent feature of the profession; prospective students of the discipline may be put off studying archaeology as not worth the financial risk. This, in turn, would run the risk of leading to a decline in the standing and potential closure of UK archaeology departments, further restricting opportunity for entry to the profession through study in addition to reducing the capacity for research in certain university departments through loss of funding and staff.

An argument of market forces does stand in contrast A reduction in graduate uptake could go some way to remedying the issue of job market saturation and resultant low pay in Archaeology. A smaller pool of labour within the profession, coupled with an increase in demand could serve to improve wage conditions for archaeologists. Of note with the arguments concerning the impact of fee rises is that they have all been set out before. A read through Kenneth Aitchison’s article Supply, Demand and a Failure of Understanding in World Archaeology (2004) devotes much space to discussion of the implications for archaeology borne by the introduction of £3000 per year tuition fees. It is important to note that, while overall debt is set to increase, so too is the minimum rate of income for repayment. On that basis, it is possible that we may see a continuation of prior student uptake. Time will tell on this, although the reactions in public opinion observed to the present fee rise as a whole are less than encouraging. On the whole, the impact of the fee rise on Archaeology cannot be assessed on the rise in price and projected graduate debt alone, but must be placed within the context of the long-running debate on the wider value of a university education in Archaeology, encompassing course content and applicability of gained skills to post-graduation employment within the profession.

Referring back to Aitchison's work, we see an expression of frustration within the Archaeological profession toward the mid-2000s. Whilst a clear majority of working Archaeologists had a university background, employers were consistently disappointed by the lack of practical skill in newly graduated employees. Aitchison referred to a deadlock between employers and university departments; a lack of responsibility on both sides resulting in graduates leaving university ill-equipped for professional archaeological work, faced with unsympathetic employment prospects in a business seemingly expecting a pool of ready-made archaeological specialists produced by universities, seldom willing to invest in and train new staff.

Discussion of the true value of an education in Archaeology seems pertinent at this stage. It is my view, in light of the discussion immediately above, that an Archaeology degree should focus on imparting three primary sets of skills. First, a firm grounding in contemporary Archaeological theory and research, aimed at inspiring new perspectives and approaches in the discipline, both in research and practice. Second, a key understanding of archaeological practice in the field, and in the context of modern legislation, ideally involving practitioners in the commercial sector, with an aim toward providing competency in the practical application of the subject that can be built on by employers after graduation. Third, of course, should be those transferable skills with application to professional fields beyond Archaeology: Teamwork, self-management, productivity, critical thinking, research skills and written communication skills incorporating clear argument formation and expression. This requires the commercial sector to become more willing to build on this work further through post-graduate training and development schemes.

Pointing to my own experiences with Archaeology at University, I can provide my own experience of the delivery of these skill sets. I studied my BA in joint-honours Ancient History and Archaeology at Newcastle University from 2006-2009, beginning 2 years after the Aitchison article, and shortly after the introduction of £3000 tuition fees. My experience of this course was largely positive; though I felt at the time a higher emphasis could have been placed on practical archaeological skills in relation to theory and thematic research. Grounding in practical skills was provided by the programme through modules on artefact identification and interpretation and a minimum fieldwork requirement of 2 weeks for the first 2 years of the course. Certainly, this experience was enough to inspire me to seek further grounding in Archaeological theory and technique with the aim being to establish a career in the field. Nonetheless, I believe my experience in the University of Sheffield during my postgraduate study showed a framework that departments nationwide should be aiming for: A firm working relationship being established with a major commercial Archaeology unit, Wessex Archaeology, following the closure of the University-based unit, ARCUS. This relationship has hugely positive applications for student and graduate training, in addition to departmental research and community projects. Such co-operation with the commercial sphere can ultimately only benefit students by providing experience that will prove advantageous to employers in the profession. This stands in addition to Sheffield’s reputation as a leading department in theory and research, and allows for a well-rounded education in the discipline. Students in departments such as this are well catered for in terms of the transferable skills conferred by a degree, in addition to the theoretical grounding that can prove itself useful to a future career in research, and practical skills of use to employment within Archaeology. This is a strategy that would work well for Archaeology in the academic environment, selling itself as a humanities subject with a distinct set of skills and subject matter, in addition to those transferable skills provided by a liberal arts education.

To summarise, the coming fee rise presents a potentially grim situation for both University Archaeology departments and prospective students. The rise in forecasted debts students will be presented with at the outset will likely cause many to re-evaluate their choice of degree programme, if not their choice to seek a university education at all. This would have a disproportionate effect on those less able to absorb the debt, furthering the image of the discipline as an affluent classes’ pursuit. In addition, the long term impacts of a shrinking human resource base could leave the discipline vulnerable to sudden increases in demand borne by, for instance, infrastructure projects. The onus now falls upon the discipline of Archaeology to make pursuing a degree in the subject all the more worthwhile given the context. My anecdotal example of working relationships being established between departments and practitioners in the commercial sector presents the direction I believe Archaeology departments should be moving in. Archaeologists in the professional and academic spheres need to come together to set out their case in an increasingly financially hostile environment.

References
Aitchison, K., 2004. ‘Supply, Demand and a failure of Understanding: Addressing the Culture Clash between Archaeologists’ expectations for training and Employment in ‘Academia’ versus ‘Practice’’, World Archaeology 36, 2