13th February 2014, 04:40 PM
This is quite a conversation, I think us too are as guilty of being ruled by our egos as those who see the IFA as purely a source of extra letters after their names!
I'll agree with the first point.
Second point, acceptance to the various grades is a little random, perhaps due to the IFA adjudicators, and it is easily fixed. I've seen appaulling archaeologists accepted to be MIFAs, and good ones only accepted at AIFA grade (suprise suprise, I'm a AIFA!).
Fourth, what prolonged training and formal qualification is required? I have two degrees in history, the Senior Project Officer opposite me has no degree. I recall getting 1/2 an hours training on my first day in the job.
Fifth, you are quite right, but the names on the ballot meant nothing to me. Voting would have been hypocritical.
Lastly, yes, apart from us, archaeology does not mean a great deal to the population in general. I think in reality it will take a lot more than negotiation with unit managers to push up wages and conditions.
I don't whether it is a sandy silt or a silty sand, just as long as it is not described as a clayey silty sandy loam!
Very lastly, I became hostile to the IFA very early in my career, when I started to realise that the boses I had most respect for were generaly not members and the ones I did not respect generally were. I can see a very similar split along the same lines in our office when we discuss the chartered status.
I think the fear a lot of us have over the chartered status is because because we don't trust the ability of the IFA to potentially assess who is a good archaeologist and who isn't and therefore who will work and who will not.
I'll agree with the first point.
Second point, acceptance to the various grades is a little random, perhaps due to the IFA adjudicators, and it is easily fixed. I've seen appaulling archaeologists accepted to be MIFAs, and good ones only accepted at AIFA grade (suprise suprise, I'm a AIFA!).
Fourth, what prolonged training and formal qualification is required? I have two degrees in history, the Senior Project Officer opposite me has no degree. I recall getting 1/2 an hours training on my first day in the job.
Fifth, you are quite right, but the names on the ballot meant nothing to me. Voting would have been hypocritical.
Lastly, yes, apart from us, archaeology does not mean a great deal to the population in general. I think in reality it will take a lot more than negotiation with unit managers to push up wages and conditions.
I don't whether it is a sandy silt or a silty sand, just as long as it is not described as a clayey silty sandy loam!
Very lastly, I became hostile to the IFA very early in my career, when I started to realise that the boses I had most respect for were generaly not members and the ones I did not respect generally were. I can see a very similar split along the same lines in our office when we discuss the chartered status.
I think the fear a lot of us have over the chartered status is because because we don't trust the ability of the IFA to potentially assess who is a good archaeologist and who isn't and therefore who will work and who will not.