9th February 2006, 02:11 PM
I'm a little mystified by some of your comments in your last post Troll
Originally posted by troll
'...potential for career development is largely negligable...'
Have to disagree there. Career development is not largely negligible. Anyone can start at the bottom and reach the top. My colleagues at my previous job (field unit)at management level all started out as excavation staff. My present colleagues in my consultancy progressed mostly the same way, rising from digger to supervisor/PO to management, with all the inherent responsibilities and tasks associated with those positions along the way. Sounds like reasonable career development to me.
'Sadly, the new graduates I have worked with have left the job very soon after a season or two simply because they have been thoroughly demoralised at the appalling standards in the commercial sector'
Really? I find that amazing. You will have to define exactly what you mean by the phrase 'appalling standards' as its fairly general, but how exactly can a recent graduate going straight in to fieldwork be 'demoralised at appaling standards'? What standards would they have to compare them to, exactly? Graduates leave field archaeology for any number of reasons. Such examples could be: that they never intended to have a field career and simply are doing for a bit of experience to support job applications in other heritage sectors; low pay; a realisation that fieldwork is not for them, after all not everyone likes digging in sh*tey weather; a loss of interest in the profession etc, as not all graduates who go into fieldwork have a passion for archaeology.
'...because consistant talent is a rarity...'
Not sure I understand the phrase 'consistent talent'. Talent is there or its not.
'..As a consequence, not a lot of quality reaches the higher echelons of the profession...'
The top-end of the profession has its fair share of nutters and idiots, but generally I think the mix of talent accurately reflects the mix at the lower levels. A definition of what 'quality' is perhaps required, as this is a subjective term. What your view of a quality professional is might differ largely from mine.
'..the rampant muppetry alive and well in the profession today...'
Yeah I agree there are some pretty awful curators and consultants out there but your comment gives the impression these people predominate. They do not.
Originally posted by troll
'...potential for career development is largely negligable...'
Have to disagree there. Career development is not largely negligible. Anyone can start at the bottom and reach the top. My colleagues at my previous job (field unit)at management level all started out as excavation staff. My present colleagues in my consultancy progressed mostly the same way, rising from digger to supervisor/PO to management, with all the inherent responsibilities and tasks associated with those positions along the way. Sounds like reasonable career development to me.
'Sadly, the new graduates I have worked with have left the job very soon after a season or two simply because they have been thoroughly demoralised at the appalling standards in the commercial sector'
Really? I find that amazing. You will have to define exactly what you mean by the phrase 'appalling standards' as its fairly general, but how exactly can a recent graduate going straight in to fieldwork be 'demoralised at appaling standards'? What standards would they have to compare them to, exactly? Graduates leave field archaeology for any number of reasons. Such examples could be: that they never intended to have a field career and simply are doing for a bit of experience to support job applications in other heritage sectors; low pay; a realisation that fieldwork is not for them, after all not everyone likes digging in sh*tey weather; a loss of interest in the profession etc, as not all graduates who go into fieldwork have a passion for archaeology.
'...because consistant talent is a rarity...'
Not sure I understand the phrase 'consistent talent'. Talent is there or its not.
'..As a consequence, not a lot of quality reaches the higher echelons of the profession...'
The top-end of the profession has its fair share of nutters and idiots, but generally I think the mix of talent accurately reflects the mix at the lower levels. A definition of what 'quality' is perhaps required, as this is a subjective term. What your view of a quality professional is might differ largely from mine.
'..the rampant muppetry alive and well in the profession today...'
Yeah I agree there are some pretty awful curators and consultants out there but your comment gives the impression these people predominate. They do not.