21st April 2009, 11:47 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by oldgirl
If you actually read the new Validation Criteria you will see that 'Levels of responsibility' are no longer the criteria used for any fo the IfA corporate levels of membership, nor is time served at a specific level. This has been the case for some time. This was done to deal with the bumpy playing field which had developed as the profession became more diverse and roles more and more difficult to define en masse.
sorry, I may have been being slightly flippant, but having actually read the criteria last year in great detail when I applied for MIFA, the skills matrix (heading levels Knowledge, Autonomy, Coping with complexity and Perception of context) whilst being an improvement on the previous process, clearly and rightly allows management skills to be considered as well as actual 'on-site' skills. I'm afraid I think my point does actually still stand, and I've talked to members of the Validation Committee about this.
I have friends who are openly apologetic of their lack of archaeological ability but got MIFA years ago as they were consultants or managers. That was a while ago, and things may have changed for the better, I think they have, which was one reason why I joined. But there are still those people out there with their letters!
BUT there is the real problem here which is that merely being MIFA does not automatically mean that the holder has relevant skills to the task. I could apply for a standing building job as MIFA, but my career might have been as a pottery specialist. This is why a NVQ scheme may be useful to indicate that the individual has skills at a suitable level and in the right area of expertise. I'm not knocking the need to set appropriate skills levels for jobs, just that we need to think about what they are, how they are judged, and how they are applied.