Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I was just browsing in the paper, and found an ad for county archaeologist, biggish county down south. I was really surprised at how little experience they were asking for: "four years' working experience of archaeology in the public, private or voluntary sectors".
Four years! Not enough to make supervisor in most places. I appreciate that most applicants will have more than four years experience, particularly as it mentions "a good knowledge of government and planning procedures"
But this is big money, why can't they ask for eight or ten years?
Why are they even mentioning the voluntary sector, I can't imagine you'd learn any useful skills there. Also, no mention of IFA membership, which you'd think would be valued at this level.
Sorry about the rant, and I mean nothing personally against curator types. I just wonder who comes up with these job adverts, and whether they are really looking for the best candidates.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Absolutely correct as you may be Oxbeast, don't knock it too much. One of their neighbours has just abolished this post, and it is looking very much like they won't be the last to do so.
At least they have the sense to recognise the need for and importance of the role...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quantity of experience is important, and I agree with Oxbeast up to that point.
However, nature of experience is also important. One frequent frustration I have is dealing with curators who have little or no field experience, having spent their entire career in SMR/DC type work.
That lack of experience can cut two ways. Some curators make unreasonable demands - just because they don't understand enough to know that they are unreasonable. Others can't identify poor practice on site, or inappropriate methodological proposals, because they don't have enough experience.
Personally, I would say that no-one should be allowed to be an archaeological DC officer or County Archaeologist without at least 5 years field experience, including experience at least up to PO level, with project design and report writing.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
1m1d is correct here - it is the quality of experience rather than the quantity that is important.
In terms of career development within public sector archaeology it might seem that there is a logical progression from SMR officer through DC officer to CAO. This might work OK given sufficient in-house training but it would be misleading to expect an SMR officer to move easily into DC work unless thay have a decent amount of fieldwork experience.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
I've always found it curious that a lack of SMR or development control experience seems often to exclude experienced field archs from curatorial posts when a lack of field experience doesn't seem to exclude SMR types. My only evidence for this is of course anecdotal, so may be completely innaccurate or biased, but it does appear that one form of experience outweighs the other. Can anyone enlighten me as to why this may be so?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Depends on the level of responsibility of the job you apply for. As in any profession, if you change to a different branch of the profession you should expect to take an inital step down.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I had a look at the further details for this job and the detailed requirements for the position, in terms of project and budget management went far above what the advert indicated.
