31st January 2011, 01:38 PM
Morning Kel! I trust you are well and enjoying the blue skies for once!
There are a couple (and only a couple) of degrees where a year out to work in a professional environment is an integral component. Perhaps this is a good model for other academic institutions to follow? Additionally, the archaeology industry could (and arguably should) consider and implement a mentoring scheme for newbies. Arguably, a good unit intent upon the retention and nurturing of a competent workforce should provide training anyway? Commercial units could provide structured training for undergrads on site-either on commercial sites where feasible or, on the university excavations themselves. In my experience-that would be invaluable for an undergrad and arguably, would merit a reasonable increase in uni fees if there are to be any. After all, if undergrads choose to pursue a career in commercial archaeology, it follows that commercial training and standards would be fundamental to that ambition.
The pay structure over the last few decades has in my opinion been allowed to continue in the same vein simply because there is great demand for the work and a great many people seeking that work. Employment in the industry is so unstable and unreliable that workers have accepted the conditions because they have no other choices available to them. In part, the IfA must accept some responsibility for this in the way that they have undervalued archaeologists consistantly in order to provide units with the lowest `labour` costs possible. They have compounded this in the way that they consistantly fail to value archaeologists through their artificially constructed three-tier `class` system. Of course, the workforce should shoulder some responsibility for the current state of play but that said, promises made by certain Unions to support the cause have fallen way short.
If the industry does indeed require or desire degree-holding applicants, then something has to change. The quality and substance of undergraduate degrees could be tailored specifically to the target industry-preferably with considerable input from commercial concerns and, with some sort of recognition from the industry on the whole and the Institute itself-that the degree is of some value to them.:face-approve:
There are a couple (and only a couple) of degrees where a year out to work in a professional environment is an integral component. Perhaps this is a good model for other academic institutions to follow? Additionally, the archaeology industry could (and arguably should) consider and implement a mentoring scheme for newbies. Arguably, a good unit intent upon the retention and nurturing of a competent workforce should provide training anyway? Commercial units could provide structured training for undergrads on site-either on commercial sites where feasible or, on the university excavations themselves. In my experience-that would be invaluable for an undergrad and arguably, would merit a reasonable increase in uni fees if there are to be any. After all, if undergrads choose to pursue a career in commercial archaeology, it follows that commercial training and standards would be fundamental to that ambition.
The pay structure over the last few decades has in my opinion been allowed to continue in the same vein simply because there is great demand for the work and a great many people seeking that work. Employment in the industry is so unstable and unreliable that workers have accepted the conditions because they have no other choices available to them. In part, the IfA must accept some responsibility for this in the way that they have undervalued archaeologists consistantly in order to provide units with the lowest `labour` costs possible. They have compounded this in the way that they consistantly fail to value archaeologists through their artificially constructed three-tier `class` system. Of course, the workforce should shoulder some responsibility for the current state of play but that said, promises made by certain Unions to support the cause have fallen way short.
If the industry does indeed require or desire degree-holding applicants, then something has to change. The quality and substance of undergraduate degrees could be tailored specifically to the target industry-preferably with considerable input from commercial concerns and, with some sort of recognition from the industry on the whole and the Institute itself-that the degree is of some value to them.:face-approve: