Uh, that is a complex question...
If we consider the fact that archeology has its origins in the exploration of the sites, more practical experience should definitely be implemented in the curriculum. At our age, our teachers had already a lot of experiences! While we have had a few, this year we went to the square in front of the university and that was considered as practical travel hahaha we also left two days in a row to Maipu (but had to travel every day because there was no money to sleep there)
The lack of financing is another problem. The department attributes this to the fact that "we are many more students than before", however, every year that passes, the tariffs increase more and enrollment increases even though the infrastructure is not appropriate for so many people. Not having a seat or even a classroom isn't uncommon in this faculty.
Another basic problem in Anthropology in general, is the division of their mentions (Social, Physical and Archeology), because the first two years (basic cycle) is actually a collage of disordered subjects (something like the continuation of the school) and you have to wait until the third year to choose something that you may not even like.
Losing two years and then realizing that you don't like what you're studying is really disastrous.
On the other hand, archeology in this university in general is fairly square when it comes to social problems, influenced by the North American processual school, often fall into prehistoric essentialism and hard data ... but what about the social? I would like there to be exclusive branches on Archeology of repression and gender Archeology, not just theoretical sections.
If we consider the fact that archeology has its origins in the exploration of the sites, more practical experience should definitely be implemented in the curriculum. At our age, our teachers had already a lot of experiences! While we have had a few, this year we went to the square in front of the university and that was considered as practical travel hahaha we also left two days in a row to Maipu (but had to travel every day because there was no money to sleep there)
The lack of financing is another problem. The department attributes this to the fact that "we are many more students than before", however, every year that passes, the tariffs increase more and enrollment increases even though the infrastructure is not appropriate for so many people. Not having a seat or even a classroom isn't uncommon in this faculty.
Another basic problem in Anthropology in general, is the division of their mentions (Social, Physical and Archeology), because the first two years (basic cycle) is actually a collage of disordered subjects (something like the continuation of the school) and you have to wait until the third year to choose something that you may not even like.
Losing two years and then realizing that you don't like what you're studying is really disastrous.
On the other hand, archeology in this university in general is fairly square when it comes to social problems, influenced by the North American processual school, often fall into prehistoric essentialism and hard data ... but what about the social? I would like there to be exclusive branches on Archeology of repression and gender Archeology, not just theoretical sections.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario