Ah... what I was meaning is that services offered are broadly similar. you gets what you pay for is always a good adage.
I would expect fees of 388 per year if I was making 50k plus
and corporate 500 quid is a drop in teh ocean to running costs for a practice with 50+ staff. so very good value.
What I am pointing out is that the eventual difference between the IfA and the Chartered IfA is very little other than the Chartered Status. ( and a few more meetings )
If this is good or bad... well it ain't for me to say. It has to be different though. An organisation people aspire to... an organisation to want to be part of. just to get those precious letters.
I talk to a lot of people and the fair percentage, from Directors to Curators to diggers and specialists / I would hazard about 75% - unscientific I know / and the normal reaction is
I am a member because ... "I was made to" "Someone else pays" " It seemed I needed it for this particular job, but I got the cheapest grade" etc......
The other 25% are truely proud to be MiFA or whatever.
Some use it as a shield of righteousness... " How dare you suggest I am paying crap... I am a MiFA --- recently one MIfA left the IfA when BAJR and the IfA questioned him. HE did not believe in the IfA just the semblance of respectable it gave.. and that coat was quickly thrown off, when it did not work.
Chartered may indeed be great.
BUT
1) Don't threaten to close off jobs to non Chartered Archaeologists.
2) Be something people are clambering over each other to join.
3) Positive sensible promotion of how good the IfA are. We do this this this and this..! You would be mad not to join us. And in addition... that yearly fee... well, you will make it back in all the benefits you get! Come on in... the IfA are better than er....um.... what?