3rd June 2004, 08:18 PM
And vice versa. If staff are sought after then one unit might offer ?500 a week, and to compete other units would have to follow suit. The problem is that staff are not sought after, jobs are - although I did hear last year that some units were struggling to get good staff, that is, with some experience and practical training. Which brings us back to the old Catch 22 situation... you need a job to get the experience which you need to get a job...
Minimum pay scales are very tricky. I wholeheartedly agree with the cobcept of national minima, which should be reasonable and applicable to all - surely any civilised society should adopt such values. Scales set by a professional body are great in theory, but I wonder if they would be contrary to monopoly and competition legislation. Also, it would require a grading system with all the drawbacks that have been discussed here.
So, are we training too many archaeologists? Well, maybe, but isn't the question what is the purpose of education - to train people for industry, or to enrich their lives - education for its own sake? As I said, I intend going to uni at the ripe old age of 48 because I love archaeology. I know my chances of employment at 50 can best be described as between zero and nil. But what the hell, you're only middle aged once and the nation needs minicab drivers!
I know from the training excavation I am involved in that many students and new grads have little or no practical experience. Perhaps we could do with post degree training of some sort, in the various fields - commercial diggery, consultancy, planning and so on, as well as the specialisations, if I may make the distinction. But who funds it? Ideally traineeships for want of a better word, perhaps?
Minimum pay scales are very tricky. I wholeheartedly agree with the cobcept of national minima, which should be reasonable and applicable to all - surely any civilised society should adopt such values. Scales set by a professional body are great in theory, but I wonder if they would be contrary to monopoly and competition legislation. Also, it would require a grading system with all the drawbacks that have been discussed here.
So, are we training too many archaeologists? Well, maybe, but isn't the question what is the purpose of education - to train people for industry, or to enrich their lives - education for its own sake? As I said, I intend going to uni at the ripe old age of 48 because I love archaeology. I know my chances of employment at 50 can best be described as between zero and nil. But what the hell, you're only middle aged once and the nation needs minicab drivers!
I know from the training excavation I am involved in that many students and new grads have little or no practical experience. Perhaps we could do with post degree training of some sort, in the various fields - commercial diggery, consultancy, planning and so on, as well as the specialisations, if I may make the distinction. But who funds it? Ideally traineeships for want of a better word, perhaps?