Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
14th November 2013, 08:05 PM
Martin Locock Wrote:The equivalent figures for 2002-2003:
20-29 26%
30-39 34%
40-49 27%
50-59 12%
60 + 1%
(Profiling the Profession 2002-2003, table 17, p. 22)
so yes the 20s % is lower now
But still 61% in age range 30-49...interesting!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
14th November 2013, 08:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 14th November 2013, 08:35 PM by Martin Locock.)
yes, it is consistent that most archaeologists are not new graduates but are in it for thelong haul. In the 2002-2003 survey they looked at varaiation across the sub-sctors and not surprisingly there was more a skew towards young, and temp contracts, in digging units, but actually the pattern is still more middle-aged than you might expect. There is a slight confounding factor in the stats: because employment doesn't start til graduation (and possibly MA completion) for most young people, this means that the 20-29 slice will always be more like a 22-29 or 25-29 slice and therefore would be lower than 30-39 or 40-49 even if there were the same numbers for each year-age.
I think that any low-pay debate has to take on board that there are mid-career, and late-career, archaeologists who are still occupying fairly junior roles, and we can't just shrug and say that a couple of lean years at the start never did us any harm.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
14th November 2013, 10:54 PM
Martin Locock Wrote:I think that any low-pay debate has to take on board that there are mid-career, and late-career, archaeologists who are still occupying fairly junior roles, and we can't just shrug and say that a couple of lean years at the start never did us any harm.
But isn't there another statistic in there Martin.....despite all signs to the contrary, archaeology is actually a lot more stable career than many people believe, at least in its longevity if not in terms of riches.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
14th November 2013, 11:45 PM
true - I don't think this info is covered in the latest report, but in 2002-3, 63% of staff had been in post for more than 2 years, so even then the short-term juming around from job to job was by no means universal.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
15th November 2013, 10:54 PM
I have been told, but it is at the very least apocryphal, that 3 years is the deciding period - if someone hasn't jacked it in within that time, they're likely to be there for the duration. Anyone else seen this?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
15th November 2013, 11:56 PM
see table 120 on p. 130 of the latest PtP for stats on length of time as an archaeologist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
16th November 2013, 12:12 AM
Martin Locock Wrote:see table 120 on p. 130 of the latest PtP for stats on length of time as an archaeologist
Thank you Martin. Sadly it seems to these tired eyes to specifically not cover that period of employment. It also doesn't, unless it is covered elsewhere in the document, state if this applies to those in commercial archaeology (and I apologise for not adding that criteria to my post...). I also question the assertion that "the surveys have always found that most people have been employed by the same organisation for over two years" (again, p. 130), as from what I've heard from the people I've worked with, anything resembling a permanent position in the commercial sector is rarer than hen's teeth. OK, again I'm being lazy and not read the entire document, but in my defence it's been a long week, it's Friday night and wine has been flowing...
