9th November 2009, 02:50 PM
Going back to the original subject: I've seen this statement in job descriptions before the present downturn. At that point it was there to allow people who did not yet have the skills needed to apply and get trained up. It would seem slightly unfair to pay someone who already has the relevant skills/abilities the same as someone who does not yet have them.
The biggest problem I have with the present climate is that people who are significantly more experienced than (for example) PIfA level are only seeing these lower paid jobs advertised.
Speaking as someone who (for my sins) goes on RO inspection visits, I can honestly say that this sort of thing is something that is raised at the benchmarking stage and also at the visit and registration stages. Along with CPD as well, which (however you get it) is vital to not just attaining a greater level of skill, but to demonstrating that skill.
And finally, the skills matrix that is used for the IfA grades are based on the National Occupational Standards (NOS). And the matrix may be considered to be 'woolly' by some, but it's designed to be applicable to people in all shades of archaeology, not just fieldworkers...
The biggest problem I have with the present climate is that people who are significantly more experienced than (for example) PIfA level are only seeing these lower paid jobs advertised.
Speaking as someone who (for my sins) goes on RO inspection visits, I can honestly say that this sort of thing is something that is raised at the benchmarking stage and also at the visit and registration stages. Along with CPD as well, which (however you get it) is vital to not just attaining a greater level of skill, but to demonstrating that skill.
And finally, the skills matrix that is used for the IfA grades are based on the National Occupational Standards (NOS). And the matrix may be considered to be 'woolly' by some, but it's designed to be applicable to people in all shades of archaeology, not just fieldworkers...