28th August 2012, 06:41 PM
Wax Wrote:Before we get into ageism at both ends of the scale I think Kevin might be trying to point out that a mature individual with responsibilities and a bit of knowledge of the world (someone over 35) would not take the sort of s... that recent graduates are subjected to. As for PP's desire to retire those who have not progressed by the age of 25 that progression would be dependant on companies having a proper reporting and assesment system with internal training opportunities. You cannot fire someone for failing to progress if you do not provide them with the means of doing so.
The current system stinks becasue as others have pointed out we are subject to the free market and in that market our skills are not valued.
Thank you Wax, precisely my point. I was trying to suggest that a suitable distance between archaeology and education would eradicate the blurry line between the job and the study.....but of course I mean neither insult to the aged or to the young.
I think that 'archaeologists' need to have more than one way of making a living and I was thinking if the first 10 years after university were spent pursuing the alternatives, those who came to archaeology at age 35 or there abouts would have a clearer idea of how to reconcile living and the demands of a career in archaeology....thats all. And as this is a fantasy, no-one need get worried about losing their job or anything similar.....but on the subject personally I don't think that achieving 'project officer' status (surely in itself a construct commercial archaeology borrowing from the building industry) is in itself the pinnacle or even much of a staging post in achieving happiness in life. And as surely most of us know, it aint much of a indicator of a successful and interesting archaeological career....now sailing the Pacific on a balsa raft, thats living. Heyerdahl was 33 at the time and only took up archaeology later in life.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...