Tuition fees and the future of fieldwork

[Lilac]

The only 1 I can think of is a pay increase.....very unoriginal of me, I know!!

But as a reasonably recent graduate, I'm interested in what other people think.......& also, you told me to reply!!!


So HELLOOOOOO over there!!!

[leg11aug]

Hiya, Should we halt it? surely one of the factors keeping salaries low is the annual glut of new graduates desperate for work. This also supplies a constant source of new blood which contributes to high staff turnover.
Perhaps a reduction of new grads would improve our lot and improve standards at the same time,

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[troll]

Not sure that we`re seeing a general downturn in the number of newbie graduates just yet.I suppose as we are THE lowest paid job a UK graduate can enter and, potential for career development is largely negligable one would see people ticking the "architecture" box on the UCAS forms instead only, if they were given an honest appraisal of the reality of the industry by bums on seats universities.Sadly, the new graduates I have worked with have left the job very soon after a season or two simply because they have been thoroughly demoralised at the appalling standards in the commercial sector.This of course means that mickey mouse units will continue to put inexperienced personnel in positions of responsibility because consistant talent is a rarity.As a consequence, not a lot of quality reaches the higher echelons of the profession. I would be sad to see a downturn in the number of graduate archaeologists.The more educated and informed the workforce-the more voices we will have to confront the rampant muppetry alive and well in the profession today.Tuition fees will always be an issue.How to keep new graduates once you`ve got them is another conundrum!!!Welcome to the forum by the way!

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[roywhiting]

I'm a little mystified by some of your comments in your last post Troll

Originally posted by troll

'...potential for career development is largely negligable...'

Have to disagree there. Career development is not largely negligible. Anyone can start at the bottom and reach the top. My colleagues at my previous job (field unit)at management level all started out as excavation staff. My present colleagues in my consultancy progressed mostly the same way, rising from digger to supervisor/PO to management, with all the inherent responsibilities and tasks associated with those positions along the way. Sounds like reasonable career development to me.

'Sadly, the new graduates I have worked with have left the job very soon after a season or two simply because they have been thoroughly demoralised at the appalling standards in the commercial sector'

Really? I find that amazing. You will have to define exactly what you mean by the phrase 'appalling standards' as its fairly general, but how exactly can a recent graduate going straight in to fieldwork be 'demoralised at appaling standards'? What standards would they have to compare them to, exactly? Graduates leave field archaeology for any number of reasons. Such examples could be: that they never intended to have a field career and simply are doing for a bit of experience to support job applications in other heritage sectors; low pay; a realisation that fieldwork is not for them, after all not everyone likes digging in sh*tey weather; a loss of interest in the profession etc, as not all graduates who go into fieldwork have a passion for archaeology.


'...because consistant talent is a rarity...'

Not sure I understand the phrase 'consistent talent'. Talent is there or its not.

'..As a consequence, not a lot of quality reaches the higher echelons of the profession...'

The top-end of the profession has its fair share of nutters and idiots, but generally I think the mix of talent accurately reflects the mix at the lower levels. A definition of what 'quality' is perhaps required, as this is a subjective term. What your view of a quality professional is might differ largely from mine.

'..the rampant muppetry alive and well in the profession today...'

Yeah I agree there are some pretty awful curators and consultants out there but your comment gives the impression these people predominate. They do not.

[geodan]

I think the suggested annual glut of fresh graduates hammering on the door of archaeological contractors desperate for jobs that pay 12 to 13 and a bit grand is overstating the actuality just a tad.

It's been the case for many a long year that lots of graduates may dream of a job in archaeology but few amongst them want to get their hands dirty and certainly not for the paltry wage offered. A very small minority (I think maybe five from 90 when I graduated in the 1990's) may, in the past, have given it a year or so but financial reality usually kicked in fairly pronto.

The number of people applying for undergrad degrees in archaeology seems to be on the wane and this will only be exacerbated by the change in Uni funding and requirement to repay loans on graduation. As a consequence the number of recent grads looking for work in contracting archaeology (and possibly the number of University Archaeology Dept's) is likely to decline over the next few years.

Incidentally the flow of new graduates into archaeological jobs would seem to me to be only part of the reason for high staff turnover. It is the consequence of the nature of the beast, at the lowest levels this usually means - a repetitive, frequently tedious unbelievably poorly paid physically demanding job with limited security and benefits that offers career progression only to the limited few who by good fortune, or sheer sticking power, touch lucky. Other jobs that offer short term contracts as the norm at least usually offer reasonable financial reward.

The archaeological organisations of various sizes that I've worked for have had little time for totally inexperienced recent graduates because the prices quoted to win bread and butter work and thus stay in business do not allow the luxury of training people (and I don't think its the Uni's responsibilty to train undergrads to be field staff, so who's doing it ?). Only on large long term infrastructure projects have I seen a willingness to take on one or two inexperienced graduates

It is a shame that the constant refrain "we just can't get any experienced staff" has not led those in senior positions within contracting organisations finally to come to terms with the market economy and realise that if nobody wants to work for you, you need to do something constructive rather than keep tendering for work without sufficient staff to do it then crisis manage and demoralise staff even further.

I think contracting archaeology teeters on the brink and a number of outcomes are possible over the next decade.

In contrast to many others I think that the growth of archaeological consultancy shows that in some ways the "profession" is growing up. Integration of archaeology into environmental assessments and use of consultants by developers shows a growing awareness that impact of development on heritage must be considered.

However, it may become an irrelevance - lack of staff and public apathy means that nobody is carrying out fieldwork and that there is little protest over archaeology destroyed. (accepting that what's going on with local government funding and possible relaxation of planning laws may make it irrelevant anyway).

As an aside, the current murmuring that suggests people without archaeological degrees could be employed as "field technicians" seems to me to stem from some deranged fantasy on the part of some that they could employ people with no interest in the subject, who would put up with hefting a mattock all day, being soaked, frozen, knackering their own cars for the good of the company etc, and all for 13 and a half grand. Don't make me laugh hand me that customer facing telephone job in a warm office that pays more money!

We all know that salaries in archaeology will never compare favourably with other graduate professions but I'd like to think that a rosier outcome is possible i.e. that supply and demand must push up salaries over the coming years.

[i_love_rocks]

SalonKitty has raised a point I made in another topic a while ago. I think there is potentially a really important issue here, which might become more serious in a few years time and therefore should be addressed now.
In terms of university departments it seems certain that many of the smaller ones will not be able to cope anymore in the near future. May this be due to falling student numbers, not enough research potential, inadequate funding or all of these factors. What is a small fall in student numbers in a big department is potentially a lethal blow to departments that only have a few undegraduate students to start with. The consequence will be fewer, more centrally located university departments teaching archaeology around the country. Subsequently, a loss in diversity of approaches and methods.
Some in the field profession may still want to complain about 'armchair archaeologists' and them not being in touch with what's going on in the field (I personally think that most of them are), but the point is that in the end academic jobs are jobs, too. Furthermore, loosing uni departments means loosing crucial lab facilities, specialists and opportunities for research, training and so forth, which field units also often have to draw on (which unit has a radiocarbon or dendro lab?).
Whether academic or field archaeologists the higher fees and decrease in student numbers should concern all people working in heritage and archaeology.
A related problem is that few students will be able to even get basic field experience during term holidays, because they can't afford going off to volunteer somewhere because they have to work in some supermarket, fast food outlet or otherwise to pay off at least some of their debts and keep going.

[Tile man]

These are all issues which were largely present in peoples minds when I graduated ( in 1990!). One point that should be made is that archaeological degrees have never been ( and should not be!) vocational and should be seen as very good degrees offering a unique combination of science and humanities based skills. Whilst there is a decline in student numbers at the moment, this may be fluctuation rather than a trend, and may well stabalise as the new system beds down ( or breaks!).

In terms of career development I have posted links to relevent documents, and Kate Geary has put up a useful statement about that elsewhere on this site, and I recomend people read those documents and make up their own minds. I would recomend people to get experience and try to explore as much of the discipline whilst at University and in the first few years and think as early as possible about where they want to go ( granted I only decided when I was 30...but there is nothing to stop you changing your mind)

moving further off topic, there are already significant skills shortages in some areas, and this can already lead to individuals getting pay rises or landing longer contracts. On a more collective basis the only mechanisms which exist at present to raise wagges are the IFA and BAJR - which is frustratingly slow! Unfortunately until the majority of archaeologists unionise to support collective barganing, more stable contracts etc and show that they will exert serious pressure to improve their pay, its not going to happen.


coo coo coo Miaow Miaow Miaow coo coo coo coo

[troll]

Roy-"Ground level archaeology". And, field archaeologists are not at the bottom my friend.I think I have made myself brutally clear on standards elsewhere on the forum.I also can`t help what you may or may not find "amazing". According to the IFA, (the Institute for Field Archaeologists) field archaeologists are indeed the bottom of the pile,the further one moves away from the specialism-the more the IFA "reward" you.They have no intention of re-evaluating their comedy validation system (see other threads).This thread asks for views on the future for ground level archaeology in the UK.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[roywhiting]

Troll - wasn't suggesting that being at the 'bottom' of the profession was in any way de-valuing the contribution that experienced diggers make to field archaeology. Good diggers are indeed worth their weight in gold and surely will be more so in the future, given the alleged drop-off in graduates continuing with archaeology as their chosen profession. On-site excavation skill is not a specialism however, although I would agree with an assertion that experience of site work is an underrated quality amongst those not in the field side of the profession.

Graduate shortage in the profession is indeed worrying, so perhaps more effort could be made to attract more mature people into the field. I've known plenty of people who have turned to archaeology slightly later in life and made a real go of it. Perhaps those graduates who left the field to earn better money might find a return to archaeology appealing after negating some of their student debt after five years or so doing something else. A more vibrant amateur scene might pave the way for people with a real interest to make the transition into professional archaeology a little easier. That perhaps is the subject for a different thread though

[mercenary]

No, no, no!

One of the real forces holding down wages in the industry is the presence of "mature" individuals who are often happy to work sporadically or part time, and for crappy wages because they made enough money in a previous career to sustain them in their new "hobby". While I recognize the contributions these people make to archaeology in general, they hurt the "profession" and the professionals trying to earn a living. Let's not go back to the past.

I for one am glad that graduate numbers are declining, because market forces may eventually give me a living wage. Too bad a building recession has now started to bite and I'm about to lose my job.