Archaeology BA or BSc

Is there a better degree to do to get into archaeology, is one more respected? Or is it just which I prefer, with the specific modules covered in each
Thanks :smile:

Reply 1

Sandtrooper

Original post

by Pendragons

Is there a better degree to do to get into archaeology, is one more respected? Or is it just which I prefer, with the specific modules covered in each
Thanks :smile:

Depending on the university, there's a lot of overlap. From a purely personal perspective, my more successful friends did the BSc, but they've gone into quite specific roles, and there doesn't seem to be any harm at all from doing a BA. There's also usually a chance to switch between them. It all depends on which modules you prefer.

Reply 2

palaeolivic

Original post

by Pendragons

Is there a better degree to do to get into archaeology, is one more respected? Or is it just which I prefer, with the specific modules covered in each
Thanks :smile:

This is super late and you’ve probably either applied for one or the other.

However, no not really.
It really depends on the university & what you want to focus on. I did the BSc and there are more compulsory modules ie. Stats & “arch science” modules, but other than that and the requisite that you do a data driven dissertation eg. stats or lab based dissertation not really.

some unis for BSc ask for a “science” A-level and some unis entry requirements are higher for the BSc - Altho this differs at each university, so isn’t a set rule. Although, with any degree if you can’t decide look at what modules you have to take between the two degrees & compare them at different unis. As archaeology degrees, vary widely at unis. ie. Southampton - maritime. Exeter - experimental. reading - romans.

But, generally content doesn’t really differ and doing a BA still means you can do all the science modules you want (generally) Altho, comp / core modules may mean you have less freedom to chose (either way).

tdlr: no not really.