10th June 2011, 12:57 AM
Interesting post from Jack....I was in conversation with a relatively senior archaeologist this past evening who told me he personally had instigated a policy of only employing recently graduated archaeologists and certainly none with more than 2 years field experience. His arguement to support this policy was that any archaeologist with greater than 2 years experience was overqualified for the posts he was offering (basically field assistant) and by that stage in their career should be motivated more by their career development than their need of a job.
My initial rection was to argue against this, but on reflection I can see both a logic and inherent 'fairness' in his approach. The fact is that it is not the bottom of the archaeological job market where there is stagnation and more bodies than jobs, but the middle and intermediate grades. I believe the correct technical term for the overqualified (either by academic or professional experience) taking lesser jobs to satisfy a need for employment, is 'bumping'.....and is a practice discouraged by most trade unions and in some circumstances (i.e redundancy arrangements) could be deemed as illegal.
I am not entirely clear in my own mind how the role of Site Technician stands in this debate. If they are genuine training/or posts for the inexperienced, then of course they are a welcome addition. If by inference that means that there are less posts for more experienced site assistants so be it. You probably can't have one without the other!! It seems to me that Jack is suggesting if you are good you will get on in archaeology..... and I might be warming a little towards that view and my friends 'new blood' policy. Surely 2 years is long enough to find out whether archaeology is the career for you and/or if you are suited for archaeology and/or whether the economic state of the profession at any one time is strong enough to support your career aspirations.....of course what would also help would be a few of the occupiers of senior posts to shuffle off to that retirement home in Dogpatch by Sea and free-up their posts for the stagnant middle tier of archaeologists....
My initial rection was to argue against this, but on reflection I can see both a logic and inherent 'fairness' in his approach. The fact is that it is not the bottom of the archaeological job market where there is stagnation and more bodies than jobs, but the middle and intermediate grades. I believe the correct technical term for the overqualified (either by academic or professional experience) taking lesser jobs to satisfy a need for employment, is 'bumping'.....and is a practice discouraged by most trade unions and in some circumstances (i.e redundancy arrangements) could be deemed as illegal.
I am not entirely clear in my own mind how the role of Site Technician stands in this debate. If they are genuine training/or posts for the inexperienced, then of course they are a welcome addition. If by inference that means that there are less posts for more experienced site assistants so be it. You probably can't have one without the other!! It seems to me that Jack is suggesting if you are good you will get on in archaeology..... and I might be warming a little towards that view and my friends 'new blood' policy. Surely 2 years is long enough to find out whether archaeology is the career for you and/or if you are suited for archaeology and/or whether the economic state of the profession at any one time is strong enough to support your career aspirations.....of course what would also help would be a few of the occupiers of senior posts to shuffle off to that retirement home in Dogpatch by Sea and free-up their posts for the stagnant middle tier of archaeologists....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...