The School of Jack Yr2

[Jack]

All the supervisor-this and supervisor-that is merely symptomatic of the [pointless] upgrading of everyone's job titles (or downgrading of the titles?), bit like all the diggers being called site assistants these days when back then it was actually a more senior post (meaning assistant to the supervisor/director)

Glad someone else has noticed how c**p the whole concept of PO is, the old fashioned supervisor and director roles were poles apart and in general suited completely different groups of people with very different approaches and skills/knowledge sets (I'm definitely in the supervisor camp), bodging them together to save money seems to me to be the root-cause of much of the decline in excavation standards over the last couple of decades, POs don't have time to supervise properly and by-and-large are diggers rather than management-minded, and the more junior ones don't have anyone looking over their shoulders and keeping control of standards [old-school directors tended to be aiming for a shiny monograph with their name (and only their name) on the front, so had some incentive, as opposed to the modern often badly-written and badly produced grey-lit productions that no one cares much about]


...oh, :face-stir:

Well done! Go to the top of the class. Have a gold star!

This is at the crux of modern commercial archaeology...........as in many other careers, the rising tide of administration and paperwork required to fulfill safety and quality (ISO) standards and to comply with, for instance the CDM regulations mean that the poor old supervisor (now promoted to Project Officer) has little time to do anything else than deal with the client, visitors, logistics and paperwork.

Of course, the School of Jack has tried and tested tricks and lessons to ameliorate this condition.....but these come later in the course.

For now, in this lesson/seminar it is enough to make those clammering to be promoted, the ambitious, the recently qualified, the unknowing, that being a supervisor/project officer may not be all you think it is.

It is not being a digger who decides who does what section or what things 'are'
It is not someone who gets more money/cudos for doing the same job.
It is not a digger who gets lackeys to dance to their whim.

A project Officer is someone who has the weight of the world on their shoulders, the person that everyone complains too and about, the person who is supposed to know everything without being told/trained, the person who is blamed for everything, and most importantly the person who should be making sure as much of the archaeological information is saved as superhumanely possible.

[kevin wooldridge]

Everyone should have the opportunity to supervise, but clearly some folk are less capable than others. Some folk, despite countless opportunities, are clearly not up to supervising. My questions to the tutor are 'How many chances' 'When should enough be enough' and 'Is it right to dob-in someone clearly not up to the task and what is the 'kindest' way to go about it'.....

[Dinosaur]

Well done! Go to the top of the class.

What do you mean, 'go'? :0

[BAJR]

I' go for the three strikes... but they have to have achieved something other than digging for a year. as for student supervisors... bane of my life... universities make students supervisors or even worse senior supervisors, if they come back to a site in their second year. This makes em think they are better than they actually are. <sigh>

[Jack]

Everyone should have the opportunity to supervise, but clearly some folk are less capable than others. Some folk, despite countless opportunities, are clearly not up to supervising. My questions to the tutor are 'How many chances' 'When should enough be enough' and 'Is it right to dob-in someone clearly not up to the task and what is the 'kindest' way to go about it'.....

Very good question, seems like a question that budding supervisors should ask themselves.
This course is targeted at helping to prepare the practitioner to survive being a supervisor in the commercial archaeological world; that question is more relevant to learning how to supervise your supervisors as a SPO or manager.

It is, however, important for those starting out in supervising to be aware of this issue. As a supervisor you will be, at some level, responsible for mess ups. Usually this is just part of 'learning the job' (see later lessons), sometimes disciplinary procedures may ensue. But more and more The School is seeing clauses in contracts stating that the practitioner will be made financially responsible for any gross mistakes.
It seems that in the commercial world, companies are having to financially protect themselves from major mess-ups by their staff.

To err is human.
But to not learn from your mistakes is diabolical.

So, in answer to your questions, the school of Jack would say, the practitioner is responsible for their own mistakes. If they make amends and learn from their mistakes, the number of mistakes allowed is unlimited.
If however, the practitioner cannot fulfill the job they are required to do and they are unprepared/unable to learn then they are not fit for the job and will find themselves (immediately or eventually) doing something else.
Furthermore, The School of Jack does not condone 'dobbing in,' but the truth should point to itself. Facts are facts.

A supervisor should be judged by: the comments the management receive from the client and/or county/national parks archaeologists, EH representatives etc; the results of the excavation; the accuracy and cross-referencing of the archive produced; the site report produced; any research carried out and finally the quality of the publication.

To those in the know, a badly-dug site is plain as the nose on your face.

The School of Jack does not recognise kindness, nor does it enter into the philosophies of the bleeding hearts.

If someone makes an error, they should be told straight and promptly where they have gone wrong, though there is no need to hang them from the yard arm.
If they learn their mistake. Fine, lesson learned. Move on.
If they can't or wont learn, they should be given a simpler task to perform.

[Andrew Hoaen]

I sense the beginning of a fine course of higher learning, but I wonder what has happened to the all important field trip, and where is the reading list for the inevitable interminable tutorial. Also I'm not convinced that you would get that modular assessment past the external. Facts are facts is just asking for a post modern punch up.

[RedEarth]

Very good question, seems like a question that budding supervisors should ask themselves.
This course is targeted at helping to prepare the practitioner to survive being a supervisor in the commercial archaeological world; that question is more relevant to learning how to supervise your supervisors as a SPO or manager.

It is, however, important for those starting out in supervising to be aware of this issue. As a supervisor you will be, at some level, responsible for mess ups. Usually this is just part of 'learning the job' (see later lessons), sometimes disciplinary procedures may ensue. But more and more The School is seeing clauses in contracts stating that the practitioner will be made financially responsible for any gross mistakes.
It seems that in the commercial world, companies are having to financially protect themselves from major mess-ups by their staff.

To err is human.
But to not learn from your mistakes is diabolical.

So, in answer to your questions, the school of Jack would say, the practitioner is responsible for their own mistakes. If they make amends and learn from their mistakes, the number of mistakes allowed is unlimited.
If however, the practitioner cannot fulfill the job they are required to do and they are unprepared/unable to learn then they are not fit for the job and will find themselves (immediately or eventually) doing something else.
Furthermore, The School of Jack does not condone 'dobbing in,' but the truth should point to itself. Facts are facts.

A supervisor should be judged by: the comments the management receive from the client and/or county/national parks archaeologists, EH representatives etc; the results of the excavation; the accuracy and cross-referencing of the archive produced; the site report produced; any research carried out and finally the quality of the publication.

To those in the know, a badly-dug site is plain as the nose on your face.

The School of Jack does not recognise kindness, nor does it enter into the philosophies of the bleeding hearts.

If someone makes an error, they should be told straight and promptly where they have gone wrong, though there is no need to hang them from the yard arm.
If they learn their mistake. Fine, lesson learned. Move on.
If they can't or wont learn, they should be given a simpler task to perform.

Once again you've managed to make it sound like a right barrel of laughs. I assume this is just an attempt to stop anyone from ever wanting to be a supervisor.

[Jack]

Once again you've managed to make it sound like a right barrel of laughs. I assume this is just an attempt to stop anyone from ever wanting to be a supervisor.

Nail on the head. Fore warned is fore armed

The School of Jack takes no responsibilities for injuries incurred through following its teachings, especially those involving nails.

I sense the beginning of a fine course of higher learning, but I wonder what has happened to the all important field trip, and where is the reading list for the inevitable interminable tutorial. Also I'm not convinced that you would get that modular assessment past the external. Facts are facts is just asking for a post modern punch up.

The School of Jack does not recognise 'fun' or 'enjoyment' in any of its forms. There is, however, a 'Field Trip' forthcoming. It will not be fun.

Attendance on the 'Field trip' is mandatory.

The lessons taught are learned from the cold hard real world so no reading list is applicable.

I refer your last comment to a previous comment by The School of Jack.........

The School of Jack does not recognise kindness, nor does it enter into the philosophies of the bleeding hearts.

To The School of Jack something is, or it isn't.
There is no grey, no mitigating factors, no excuses. If you filled the site bus with the wrong fuel, you filled the it with the wrong fuel. Stand up to your responsibilities and make it right. Learn from the mistake and don't repeat it.

The School of Jack is not responsible for the rantings of its members

As site supervisor (PO etc), if some important archaeology is destroyed without recording, or an important relationship is mangled beyond understanding it is your fault!

The School of Jack does not apportion blame. It only speaks truth

[kevin wooldridge]

As site supervisor (PO etc), if some important archaeology is destroyed without recording, or an important relationship is mangled beyond understanding it is your fault!

I suspect you means its your responsibility rather than your fault.....no-one can be held to blame for events outside their control (other than the Pope), but any of us could be responsible for ameliorating the damage caused by such events....

[Unitof1]

how do you prove that an important relationship ever existed. surely a fundamental is that important archaeology only exits after its been copyrighted. Perhaps this course needs some lessons on shrodiggers cat