Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
17th September 2004, 12:34 PM
There are pros and cons to big and small units. A big unit might offer a wider range of actual [u]sites</u> (ie. more varied digging experience), but a smaller unit will be able offer a wider range of [u]roles</u>. Instead of being 'just a digger', a low-grade employee for a small unit will have the chance to do things such as desk-based research, finds illustration and so-on.
Experience in either is useful for the other. So if you get your first job with Oxford or Wessex, two or three years down the line you should have an impressive list of sites of all periods and a good grounding in how field projects operate on a day-to-day basis. These are valuable skills to bring to a smaller unit. Equally if your first job is in a smaller team, then you are likely to have been exposed to a wider range of different types of projects, which boosts the chances of joining a larger unit at a slightly more senior level.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
17th September 2004, 01:50 PM
I fully agree with the last two posts. Training is down to the individuals desire to learn and their profesional ambition. I've never understood the ethos exhibited by some people, who think that they have to learn in a classroom situation first before applying it in the field. That's never been necessary as regards straightforward excavation skills. The old 1980's MSC bunch never sat down in a classroom (as far as I know) and the ones that stuck with archaeology as a career turned out to be excellent archaeologists
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
17th September 2004, 03:10 PM
Very much agree about the roles in a small unit. Seen people trained up to cover far more types of work in a good unit such as Durham then at large mega unit. Main thing to do is ask around what the units offer and to show you want to have a go.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th September 2004, 05:31 PM
Agree Agree Agree... but would like to see a structure to the final result.
I myself started in the early 80s (well ok...1981!!) and learned as I went... from people who knew better and were willing to pass on tricks and knowledge. Things are different now... and we are in a catch 22 situation in regards to Pay and Conditions.
If people want better conditions and pay that matches there ability... they must have a formal way of showing their qualifications... the chances of getting a well paid job based on the fact that ol' Baggins the Digger says he has never seen anyone dig a post hole the way you do... just ain't going to cut the mustard.
It is the best place to learn (the Pub and the Field) but the results must be available to prove to employers what you can do... so training excavations and Continual Development must also be seen as a necessary addition.
BAJR
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
18th September 2004, 01:11 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Boris the Cat
There are pros and cons to big and small units. A big unit might offer a wider range of actual [u]sites</u> (ie. more varied digging experience), but a smaller unit will be able offer a wider range of [u]roles</u>. Instead of being 'just a digger', a low-grade employee for a small unit will have the chance to do things such as desk-based research, finds illustration and so-on.
Experience in either is useful for the other. So if you get your first job with Oxford or Wessex, two or three years down the line you should have an impressive list of sites of all periods and a good grounding in how field projects operate on a day-to-day basis. These are valuable skills to bring to a smaller unit. Equally if your first job is in a smaller team, then you are likely to have been exposed to a wider range of different types of projects, which boosts the chances of joining a larger unit at a slightly more senior level.
Boris the cat,
I fully agree but I feel that the benefits are more to be felt by the small unit, large unit experience benefits the small unit by breadth of experience more than diversity of experience benefits the large unit. In a large unit you may be restricted to the level of experience previously demonstrated but in a small unit you are definitely restricted by the limited training opportunities available to the individual. I worked for a small unit recently before joining a large national company and during my time with the small unit had no access to any training programmes at all, tight budgets ensured that I had no access to training!! btw Boris has ruined my newest pair of jeans with his blinkin' cat hairs!!!
Oz
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
18th September 2004, 10:17 AM
just to throw another cat into teh bag .... what about educational qualifications in the core skill - so you could end up with an accredited qualification in Digging (grade 3) Buidling Survey (Grade 5) etc etc??
It is one of the possibilities that is being explored just now... with regional centres for people to take courses/examinations... and allow real qualifications to equate to career level and remuneration in pay and conditions...
This could also be dovetailed into onsite training...
So in effect a kind of CPD (plus)
???
BAJR
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
15th October 2004, 10:51 PM
Had to blow the dust off this thread... as I've opined before, I really would warn you guys off the "accredited qualificatin" route. This would end up in a chase for cub scout badges and lead to the LA "grading" mentality. Everyone is then more obsessed with old Joe being a C4 and Sue's a D3 but I'm only a F7 even though my trowel's smaller than either of their's.... and how do you accredit the bvest post-hole digger in the west?
Stick to doing it like any other profession, rely on a decent CV and maybe a bit of reputation and/or word of mouth. If you can't do what you said you can you get shown the door.
Looking down the BAJR jobby thing I see the old problem, employers asking for experience, specialities, names of references up front, and all for little more money a school leaver can get. If they get the employees they want, that answers the question.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2004
23rd October 2004, 10:39 AM
Hello all.
I have just graduated this year and as a mature student I was aware how hard it would be to find employment in archaeology. In total I have had 13 weeks experience most of it digging skeletons. I have applied for countless jobs who ask for "some" experience i.e. 2-3 months the big "but" is that yes these units do not require much experience but obviously when people with more experience than yourself applies they are going to choose that person.
This can be and is very frustrating because like the old saying goes "to get the job you need experience but to get experience you need a job" and I am beginning to think that I will never get one, not even anything temporary until I work for countless months possibly as a volunteer to get that experience (which of course I am willing to do) but I do think that some form of extra training should be offered by these bigger units and universities to prepare people who are willing and wanting to learn these skillswhich will ultimately make them suitable for positions that are being offered.
Jackie
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2004
23rd October 2004, 12:05 PM
Don't give up! I consider myself quite lucky in that I graduated last year from college with very little experience, 8 weeks digging in all, and got my first job straight away. However, after this finished, I was unable to find employment and ended up working at the post office for six months. Then as I was about to consider four'o'clock starts for the forseeable future, I was offered a job with a unit who would allow me to learn on the job, although they paid me slightly less than the going rate. I learnt a lot with fantastic supervisors who would answer any question, however stupid, and ended up getting another job shortly after this one.This job paid me the same as other more experienced diggers, although I was still learning.
Ultimately I think that people are learning for a lot longer than the 3 to 6 months that most units ask for in experience, and in order to get good diggers for future projects they should be willing to take on people with less experience and invest time in them.
Becky
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2004
27th October 2004, 01:41 AM
I agree with jackie on this one; its hard to get experience without a job, but i can't get the job in the first place! I am rapidly getting to a point where i feel like adding "will work for food and loan repayments" at the bottom of every application, either that or "please just give me a chance".
It worries me that people don't seem willing to give graduates a chance. Ok so i might not have the highest amount of dig time in (admittedly pathetically small) but the fact i have managed that, volunteered in museums, gained a degree in archaeology and held down two jobs at the same time must tell you something about me! and the fact is that i can say the same about a large number of the people who graduated at the same time, none of whom seem able to make that first step. I appreciate that given the choice between a fresh faced grad and a digger of ten or twelve years experience, the latter is more likely to win, but dont discount us young'uns. After all, we started training in this field knowing how hard it would be, are willing to keep on training off our own backs, and most importantly for an employer, you can shape us into what YOU think is the ideal archaeologist for your company/unit/department, and the majority of us would be happy to learn in our own time - after all most other sectors would expect that as standard.
anyways apologies for the rant there. Since i am currently working in training admin in the business sector, archaeology is taking on that misty, magical aura it had when i was in my first year, and i myself dreaming of excavating iron age ditch features rather than finishing the filing.
Ahh what the hell, "will work for food and loan repayments".
