Editor's Corner
Are there too many Ph.D.'s in archaeology? Or is
the question really, Are the Ph.D.s trained in the vast majority of graduate
programs likely to obtain meaningful employment in the academy? If the answer
is no, is what they are learning in these programs going to serve them well in
the increasingly primary market of the contract field? Joseph Schuldenrein
examines these and other questions in a very interesting report on a conference
held recently at Barnard College in this issue's Insights column. The
conference offered a wide spectrum of opinion from the private sector, the
academy, museums, and government service on just what kinds of training
archaeologists need to create their careers in these difficult times. Some of
the most interesting commentary came from graduate students facing the
realities of the job market with a mixture of confidence, optimism, and
resignation. The report can be read at a number of levels, but the one that
captured my attention was only obliquely mentioned: the ethical issue of
producing many more Ph.D.s than are remotely likely to get academic employment.
I have had colleagues argue that graduate programs should declare a moratorium
on admissions for varying lengths of time. Others argue that as long as
programs honestly inform students at the start of their graduate careers that
the chances of obtaining that dream job are very small, we have discharged our
ethical duties and can keep our programs running. I imagine that while most of
us feel the ethical pinch in continuing to produce students, we are also very
aware of the consequences of allowing this ethical concern to come to the
attention of predatory administrators with cost-cutting agendas. Schuldenrein
and others suggest that a middle ground would be to retool aspects of our
programs to provide our students with some of the very different skills they
need to succeed in the contract world. This too may prove impractical for most
of us, but it may be a sensible option for some programs to pursue. One thing
is certain in all of this: we as a discipline must take this question seriously
over the next decade and develop some acceptable responses. If we don't,
someone else will do it for us, and it's quite likely we won't like the
results.