Excuses for rejection

[deadlylampshade]

Application forms can tie you to specific referees - ie last employer and if you have your own company for whatever reason (archaeology or something different) it has to be your Accountant. The forms I have filled in so far stipulate this. And I don't think lying on a CV or an application form is very professional and you will be caught out.

However

The covering letter can make all the difference. I have quoted a relevent referee from TWENTY years ago (so with a 7 year gap you should have no worries!) and explained that I was in earnest about my application...and some one very kindly saw the potential, phoned me to ask if I really WAS serious (!) and I have at least got an interview.

Have to say I feel more nervous about it than anything else for a considerable amount of time.:0

[gonetopot]

Speaking from a unit that has recently advertised site assistant posts on BAJR, the biggest factor for us is the sheer volume of applicants and each time we advertise it seems to get worse. Sometimes you are looking at 30-40 applicants pre job, on a site where 5 or 6 people are required. At least three quarters of these applicants will have the relevent qualifications and experience, so if decisions appear arbitary it is because sometimes they have to be.

One thing I note when wading through CVs, is how many could be edited for succinctness. Education and employment history could often be drastically cut down to what is relevent and supplemented with a summary of site skills etc. Don't just give facts, sell yourself. I don't think age is an overiding factor and we try to balance experienced hands with graduates. But at the moment the sheer number of trained and experienced archaeologists available for work is staggering.

[Dinosaur]

When screening applicants for digging jobs we (perhaps incorrectly) are mainly just interested in 'can they dig' and 'are they an a*******', qualifications count for very, very little.....anyone who's spent 10 years getting a string of degrees is someone who's got 10 years less digging experience, a lot of the best diggers I know don't have any noticeable qualifications, certainly not in archaeology.....

Its a running joke that the last time I got issued any diggers who were younger than me (and I'm hardly a spring chicken) was in 2007, so what's the age thing about? Not sure I could handle the shock of having to deal with a 40 year old youngster! With age comes experience, technique and economy of effort, but equally big holes in the ground at the end of the day :face-approve:

[Kel]

Most of those points do seem like "reasons" rather than excuses (with the exception of the age issue). If vacancies are vastly over-subscribed, then as an employer you're going to be looking for people with current skills and recent experience, who can hit the ground running onsite. You might need to work on using your CV to prove that this includes you, rather than asking them to take it as read.

Are you appying for jobs that link with your PhD or MA subject? If you're applying for digging or project supervisor jobs when you've spent years buried in libraries and archives researching Roman hair pins, then it might be worth gritting your teeth and downplaying that aspect of your study. In my previous life in IT, I was occasionally responsible for recruitment; a CV and covering letter carefully tailored to each vacancy you apply for, could be the deciding factor in whether you get an interview.

Geting some experience in your target job field might actually prove as valuable as the PhD (and now my teeth are gritting on your behalf). Would you consider attending paid field schools, just so that you could find yourself a recent referee or two who can confirm that you pitch in, work as a team member, maintain focus (i.e. you don't get bored) and don't see shovelling spoil as "beneath you" - a preconception which is presumably part of the problem with a PhD?

If it's any consolation, I was rejected for jobs as over-qualified when I was 20 because I had A Levels. It's not an issue specific to archaeology. Good luck.

[Rich_cuk]

Some more good points here, replies are much appreciated.
I have interviewed people in business, and after one of my redundancies attended a 2 day course run by a company which deals with CVs etc professionally. I feel that the "rules" for archaeology CVs and the like are different to those in business, so it seems as if I will have to take a slightly different approach with the CV here.
The "beneath me" aspect really sucks, and one that seems to be real. I think it's again something that I have to explain on the covering letter, and while the lack of "recent experience" would prevent me from applying for supervisor or assistant supervisor posts (apart from a lack of knowledge about planing and the legal side of things), the protocol used in digging is something that I know well, and could do tomorrow. Shovelling spoil, carting it away etc are done for a reason, and while some would consider it beneath them, it's part of the job and something again which I have to put forward.

While on a letter my skills and experiences are laid out with reference to places/people I have worked with in the field, the reasons why I am applying for lower ranked posts are perhaps not explained properly.

[Unitof1]

May I ask what it is that you ?and others want. There appears that there is a concept of a digging job in which there is set up a situation which requires people to dig and be paid. There is no example of where this has ever been a lucrative or permanent position-should that be called a job? People seem to chuck the word professional at it for some reason. What seems to be ignored is that in commercial archaeology this is paid for by a client who I will let you into a secret does not want to pay (there are no exceptions). I would also say that the client in most cases has no clue as to what it is that they are paying for and are rightly suspicious about anything that they are provided with. I think is that it is easier to sell the client non degree diggers than degreed and defiantly if I was to have postgraduate diggers the client would think that I am gold plating the situation. Where is the benifit to the client. If anything the qualifications of the diggers are never brought into the contract negotiations-probably because of qualification embarrassment. I have yet to see any archaeological company positively proclaim or see it as a bidding benefit that its diggers where degreed or postgraduate except once they have landed the contract and were dragged into doing PR for the client- Suddenly the supervisor interviewed on local radio is a medieval specialist on dog burials?

A way round the situation would be to show the client that one degreed or postgraduate was worth so many more non degreed and that in fact they saved the client money (made more out of the client). It would have to be in the order of several diggers wages. Not likely? Do postgrads dig faster, not really. Have you thought about manufacturing for yourself a non degree sleaze ball chancer persona as it is these that are the most sort after field fodder alternatively what you need to show your potential exploiters is that you can somehow maximise their profits by employing you. It could be that you have to show them how by employing you they can cover the same area of ground but dig less for the same price-the dark arts.

The other advice about aiming higher is possibly your best alternative but in this climate....have you though about setting up on your own...

[VGC]

UnitOf1 there are so few diggers around these days who do not have degrees, it's pretty much a pre-requisite for the job, even if arguably they are not an accurate reflection of one's abilities as an archaeologist.

Those who don't have degrees will have been around for a while, and are most likely supervisors or project supervisors and thus on a different pay grade anyway.

[Unitof1]

my view is that having a degree or a postgrad it is not a good selling point. theres a chance that if I could make out that my compertition was over qualified that I would win the contract

[archaeologyexile]

As has been said the best way to get a job at a unit is to get to know someone.......you have to be very persistent, lots of phone calls and ask for tour etc! there are lots of good people out there and like all managers people running archaeological projects want easy solutions!

[Dinosaur]

Agree with that entirely! Don't overlook the fact that most digging jobs never get advertised, so if people don't know to call you you're gonna miss out on all of those straight off (all of ours for a start, we just phone round when we need people). Get your CV out there or you'll never get a call