28th March 2006, 12:34 AM
There is a real danger here of categorizing and generalising about someone's motives based on their age or the fact that they previously had a different career and have come to archaeology as a wage paying job later in life, or on the basis they are not 'qualified'. What is meant by qualified anyway? Some may have years of experience with local archy societies or done months on training excavations. They may have been to a variety of practical and theory evening classes and have read anything and everything they can to improve their knowledge and skills. So in fact some of them may be better 'qualified' to do the job than your average normal age graduate straight out of uni. Just have't got the right bits of paper.....
Then there is the financial side. If we are to deny people a digging career because they can afford not to work, do we therefore means test all job applicants ? What about a 23 year old archaeology graduate with an independent income of some sort? They will be able to 'manage' financially between contracts and can afford to be not working. Same could be said for a 30-something digger, like myself, who may be married to someone who has a well paid job (doctor, lawyer, computer programmer for example) ? I can afford to have periods of unemployment. I would rather be working, doing the job I have chosen to do but if there is no work, I won't starve or be unable to pay my (very small by today's standards) mortgage. The financially independent 23 year old grad and myself are competing for the same jobs as less financially secure diggers AND there must be a much greater proportion of people like us in the job market than the semi-retired part-timers. So should we also be cast out of our chosen profession in order to make way for diggers with more pressing financial needs?
Mercenary said
In most professions/jobs with a practical element (as there obviously is in archaeology) most training is done 'on the job', with day release etc at college to get the paper qualies and theory. I would argue that it should be duty of units, wherever practical, to take on at least a proportion of 'green' trainees (with degree or no degree). Why expect them all to have been trained (and that training to have been paid for) by someone else?
Then there is the financial side. If we are to deny people a digging career because they can afford not to work, do we therefore means test all job applicants ? What about a 23 year old archaeology graduate with an independent income of some sort? They will be able to 'manage' financially between contracts and can afford to be not working. Same could be said for a 30-something digger, like myself, who may be married to someone who has a well paid job (doctor, lawyer, computer programmer for example) ? I can afford to have periods of unemployment. I would rather be working, doing the job I have chosen to do but if there is no work, I won't starve or be unable to pay my (very small by today's standards) mortgage. The financially independent 23 year old grad and myself are competing for the same jobs as less financially secure diggers AND there must be a much greater proportion of people like us in the job market than the semi-retired part-timers. So should we also be cast out of our chosen profession in order to make way for diggers with more pressing financial needs?
Mercenary said
Quote:quote:I agree, and I have huge problems with the units that employ unqualified people of any age;.
In most professions/jobs with a practical element (as there obviously is in archaeology) most training is done 'on the job', with day release etc at college to get the paper qualies and theory. I would argue that it should be duty of units, wherever practical, to take on at least a proportion of 'green' trainees (with degree or no degree). Why expect them all to have been trained (and that training to have been paid for) by someone else?