24th June 2014, 06:04 PM
Dirty Boy Wrote:I don't have problems with a trainee wage perse, as I can appreciate that someone who has been doing it a few years should get paid more than someone who needs constant supervision. That said, I think there needs to be far more variation in the upper levels of the site assistant/digger/field archaeologist pay scale to take account of more experience, perhaps rather than a below minima 'trainee' scale.
IF trainees are to be hired, I would simply ask where the training plan is: i.e. - when do I become an archaeologist. Not some nebulous point where you are thought to be 'good enough', but a written statement of what needs to be learned in order to become a 'full' field archaeologist. These need to be achievable, measurable and demonstrable. I'm thinking along the lines of hosty's skills passport here - I think its a great idea for new starters. If there is a list of things to be learned, e.g. levelling, photography, strat - a trainee can see what they need to work on in order to finish training, ideally with written feedback on how to improve if they are not at the correct standard.
If such a training plan does not exist, I would say it's not a proper trainee position and shouldn't be offered.
and that
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers