9th July 2010, 11:45 PM
traiterous mud bloods?
not quite, although it read that way the first time I read it and nearly dropped my bacon sarnie. I think (and I must admit to having deliberately ignored this one in the past) that the point was that the IfA's stated aim is to make accreditation a bar to entry to the profession (i.e. you can only practise as an archaeologist if you're in the IfA). To make that even a vague starter, the IfA needs to have a much bigger membership so that they achieve this aim. I'd recommend reading the pronouncements on their website, particularly the frankly baffling response to PPS5, which somehow was taken as an endorsement of the need for 'accreditation' (I think that the word expert was used...). Oh yes, and IfA members and RAOs would never countenance any of the sharp practices that non RAOs and non-members routinely employ.
@unit, I've worked for local government, 'charities', totally private, disestablished local government, universities and 'not universities'. The only ones who've offered to pay my IfA subs were private. Dunno about EH though, so you could be onto something there...
@dirtyboy, one of the RAO criteria is provision of the CPD required by IfA members, and the validation committee audit that.
I think that as Jessica Mitford nearly said, the problem isn't with a small minority of cowboy archaeologists, but the bulk of the decent, reputable archaeologists.
not quite, although it read that way the first time I read it and nearly dropped my bacon sarnie. I think (and I must admit to having deliberately ignored this one in the past) that the point was that the IfA's stated aim is to make accreditation a bar to entry to the profession (i.e. you can only practise as an archaeologist if you're in the IfA). To make that even a vague starter, the IfA needs to have a much bigger membership so that they achieve this aim. I'd recommend reading the pronouncements on their website, particularly the frankly baffling response to PPS5, which somehow was taken as an endorsement of the need for 'accreditation' (I think that the word expert was used...). Oh yes, and IfA members and RAOs would never countenance any of the sharp practices that non RAOs and non-members routinely employ.
@unit, I've worked for local government, 'charities', totally private, disestablished local government, universities and 'not universities'. The only ones who've offered to pay my IfA subs were private. Dunno about EH though, so you could be onto something there...
@dirtyboy, one of the RAO criteria is provision of the CPD required by IfA members, and the validation committee audit that.
I think that as Jessica Mitford nearly said, the problem isn't with a small minority of cowboy archaeologists, but the bulk of the decent, reputable archaeologists.