orestes

I'm currently completing a bachelor of arts in historical studies and a bachelor of education. I was thinking about studying a Masters in archeology or paleontology... Yeah I was one of those kids who thought it'd be cool to dig up dinosaur bones and past civilisations. The problem is while my academic skills are quite good, I haven't studied science since high school and even then I didn't pay much attention.

So how much of a science grounding would I need before contemplating a coursework masters in either of the fields mentioned above? How much of a typical course is science based and how much of it is research/academic based?

I'm just pondering what I'm getting myself into.

corrocamino

That's a question for the university. You can't be a paleontologist without firm grounding in zoology and geology, and that requires quite a bit of chemistry (elementary physics likely will be required, as well). Archaeology, I should think, would require coursework in geology, chemistry, and physics, too.

My advice and Nike's are the same: Just do it!

Lady_Cassandra

Can't speak for paleontology but for archaeology while you don't have to be a specialist in many fields of science it would be helpful to have basic grasps at least of chemistry, geology and biology (especially osteology). Many people pick one (or a few) thing/things and specialize in it but that's something you can figure out in time, for example some specialize in forensics and/or osteology others do mapping and still others become pottery experts, etc etc. The list goes on and on. I can only speak for the undergrad level (and from perusing courses at the grad level) but typically there are specific courses that focus on either a scientific aspect of the field or a more theoretical. But archaeology today (In the US at least) has much more of a focus on the scientific method than it perhaps did in the past. It might help you a lot to try out a field school, a lot of universities offer them, and it 's something that's recommended you do anyway, but it might give you a good picture of what might be expected of you in the field. Science cannot be escaped in the study of archaeology and make no mistake it takes up a good portion of your educational training.

Sebastien Melmoth

Pardonnez-moi, but archeology and paleantology are sciences.

davu

very very cool and of course ---- i'm jealous

Edratman

As they say, touche.

sculptingman

I would say that if you want a real career in either, the more science, the better.

Picks and shovels are work for local labor... and the old school is rapidly getting older.

In any scientific field the future tenures and grants will go to those doing the most cutting edge work, revealing new insights from old artifacts and bones... and figuring how new technologies enable new techniques for investigation.
The most exciting thing in paleontology in the past 20 years was the discovery of Dinosaur proteins in a fossil... by a biochemist, in a lab.

A hot field in archaeology right now is 3D scanning and computer modeling of sites and structures. and integrating that information to discover hidden sites or chambers, or reveal new understandings.

The more scientific your approach... the more secure your future in terms of employment, grants, or making a lasting impact on the body of knowledge.

Lord_of_Gauda

You can forget getting into Paleontology without a bachelors in pure sciences( physics,chemistry & biology). It is possible to become an archaeologist with minimal scientific background, provided you take science electives, especially in things like radiology, imaging and statistical analysis. But as sculptingman says, in archaeology these days, the more scientific background you have, the better and more flexible your options are.

Sillyduffa

In Australia, to study archaeology you only need to fulfill any prerequisites the course wants. You don't have to study science, and in most cases it is desired that you also study anthropology. The two often go together. I study history and archaeology and I have not taken any science classes, most of what you need is learned along the way. Palaeontology definitely requires a background in geology.

Archaeologists are the tarts of science and generally rely on specialists to do all their dating and so forth, but as Lady_Cassandra said you do need a basic understanding of osteology, geology etc. depending on what area you wish to go into.

I would add that in archaeology there is a significant amount of reading, more than you would get in say, geology. Many students sign up for archaeology with Indiana Jones in mind, and it is just not like that. It is more like history, we read, read and then read some more. When you're in the field it is hot, sweaty manual labour.

A masters in archaeology doesn't have to be based in science. Some people do theoretically based post-grad work. If you are looking for something with great job prospects though, don't bother with archaeology. It is very competitive and there are few jobs. Archaeology is something you do for love and if you're lucky you may score a job along the way.

orestes

That's the thing... I was digging around [no pun intended] on seek and the pay scales aren't really any better than those for someone who works their way up the teaching scale. That is to say I could earn $100k a year just lecturing, and the work is probably tougher in the field than it is behind a desk/lecture theatre.

I got into uni with the idea of doing an arts degree in history so I could do something with it later. I've been digging around and could probably fit into something like a masters in archeological studies at ANU without much grounding in science at all but as you were saying the job prospects aren't even really that great and even when I do complete my studies I'll have just racked up more unnecessary debt.

I think I'm best off staying on this side of the fence with textbooks rather than jumping into the hands on work. As much as I like the novelty of an "Indiana Jones" or "Jurassic park" type fantasy I can read about in books and get paid as much behind the desk. I may just consider doing a masters in ancient history if I get board down the track and jump across into uni lecturing as opposed to teaching.