Excuses for rejection

[Rich_cuk]

I am finding it impossible to get any position whatsoever after spending years back at university re-qualifying. The excuses I am getting range from the acceptable to the truly lame. Are the following the norm - or is it really difficult to find anything?
1 - I am too old (I am 40). Although not stated it is obvious.
2 - I am over qualified. Relevant qualifications - have a BA (First Class Honours), MA (Distinction) and a PhD (viva pending), a teacher training qualification, good IT skills and am a First Aider. Is IFA membership mandatory? Surely I am the best judge of being over qualified...
3 - Lack of recent experience. Recent being the word. Lack of experience - no, but I was last in commercial archaeology some 7 years ago, and it would take me no time at all getting back up to speed.
4 - "We have had x applications..." - the classic cop-out with no reason stated as to why I am not suitable for a position paying far less than I could otherwise get.
5 - No reply (email or post). This is common in business and I would hope not in archaeology, where communication with various bodies is important.

Sorry for sounding grumpy, but views welcome

[VGC]

Unfortunately it's normally a mix between over qualified, lack of experience and age

Right now the commercial sector is growing, albeit slowly, this means there are jobs in archaeology. However, the majority of people chasing these jobs will be archaeologists who were made redundant last year, and thus have much more recent experience (commercial archaeology has changed dramatically in the 6 years I've been involved with it!).

Although there are plenty of commercial diggers who are over 40, most of them have moved into more managerial positions, and thus don't really do the circuit as much. You'll probably be viewed as someone with a family/other commitments who wouldn't be as willing to go to say Shetland for 4 weeks, with no time home, for a small evaluation, whereas younger diggers with less ties would be.

Thirdly. Overqualified. It's a pain. I've been rejected from supermarkets and bar jobs before because of this, and I only have an first degree. I'm not saying this is you in any means, but there is probably a generalised view that someone with a PhD would find doing a fairly rubbish watching brief beneath them, and the HR person would probably be questioning why someone with a PhD is applying as a digger again.

To better your prospects join the IfA, it can't harm your prospects, get a CSCS card, if you can trim down your CV. If you had a job while you did your PhD maybe remove the PhD aspect from it, and just keep the employment record. Stops you being so "overqualified"...

Not sure if that's what you want to hear but my two cents

[BAJR]

Nice advice Stef!

I would agree... don't make yourself more qualified than you need to be... IfA membership at any level would be seen as a good tick with some companies and as a kiss of death by others.. but it can't hurt to at least be a PiFA

[deadlylampshade]

Goodness this is depressing...I have over come the "over qualified" bit by writing a covering letter Uriah Heap would be proud of (the Dickensian character, not the band!) and blagged an interview...all I want is my foot in the door and then I am sure I can dazzle like Fred Astaire...it's damned difficult though...and after a twenty odd year gap I am trying to suppress the negative voices that I am I getting and I DO WANT TO DO THIS!!! (Yes, I am shouting. I have had a stressful day and I have stopped smoking...sorry..)

Committed? Certainly

I should have been, years ago!

[chrysalis]

One tip, try googling yourself. I was asked to do this once when a CV came into the office. One hit - MySpace, hobbies listed as 'sex and drinking'. We binned it. Not to suggest that your e-presence is quite this blatant but its amazing what can turn up that may be less than flattering. Whereas e.g. a listing as a speaker at the local archaeology society, your amazing charity work raising money for looted museums in iraq, and your in depth web portal on roman fibulae... looks good (if geeky)!

[monty]

Don't put your age on CV !!! it is irrelevant and I never do ( and am older !!!) May I wish you good luck and keep trying ....there is work about.

[GnomeKing]

it is an Absolute Outrage and a Deep Affront that any archaeological employer could cite 'overqualified' as a basis for rejection...these 2-faced individuals will in the next breath be-moan the loss of skills, the useless graduates, the problems of training...blah blah blah......they will be sending out letters at the same time saying 'sorry, not enough experience'

perhaps you are better off out of those cankerous companies, whose HR Quizzlings are merely symptoms of a deeper Rot....

Like Goldilocks, is there a level of experience thats, "mmm, just right!" ?

I am disgusted taht 'over' qualified/experencied could be used in commercial field work, as this shows a fundemental disconect between Real Fieldworkers/Field Skills and Managment/HR objectives...

it is a damming indictment of current commercial archaeology taht it could ever be suggested taht removing a PhD from ones CV could benefit employability !!! (yes, 3)

whats all this about 'recent experience' ? if commercial field practice has changed in teh last ten years (ie techniues, methods, skills, fundemental knowledge and abilities) then it has not been for the better....seems pretty similar to me...

Why wouldn't you want an experienced 'old hand' on your young difficult to train team? - perhaps they are not so wiling to take abuse, or turn a blind eyes to OHS failures, or breaches of employment standards/practice...perhaps they know too much, and can 'upset' the team....or the manager...or the client.

Perhaps they recognise Shoddy Practice for what it is - this is a revelation that Weaklings and Quizzlings fear and resent, as it hurts there malformed egos.

[Rich_cuk]

Thanks for the replies - some good points Stef, and much along my lines of thought. Deadly - my reasons are exactly the same as yours. I want to do archaeology because it's what I enjoy and I am desperate to get my foot in the door. I could make much more money in my former career in accounts, but earning money being bored 24/7 is not for me. Stef's point about being over qualified is undoubtedly true, and that alone really sucks. If I was not serious then I would not apply. As an employer, if I could get someone with a PhD "on the cheap" I would ask him/her in person why they are applying and state the potential problems, but far too many people in recruitment are too blinkered to think about this.

To get started again and get "recent experience" I am prepared to start low and work my way up, and have made it clear to prospective employers why I want the position. I am a good team person who is prepared to learn/relearn from people younger than me. I am also flexible and would work anywhere in the country, have no ties etc. But over qualification is perhaps by biggest problem - research is not an option due to age (I applied for a research position at Oxford and was not given an interview because of this) so I would research in my spare time and teach to supplement income.
Committed - yes. Googling myself - I am a famous American footballer :0) but I have organised study tours to Egypt (which is my speciality area, perhaps this counts against me but even so the techniques used are similar to the UK), spoken at conferences and have done dancing competitions (maybe not dazzling like Fred Astaire..) so no dodgy CVs there.

IFA and the CSCS card - I would gladly invest in both but not until I have the position I am looking for, as it costs a fair bit.

Monty - I never put age on a CV, but they do work it out when you list your education and employment dates on the application form.

Gnome - I agree entirely. When I phoned up for info on one position advertised here I explained my current situation, and was told immediately, "you seem over qualified for this job". I did not even get an interview. As a mature student I got on with my class as I treated them as equals.

Rich

[trainedchimp]

1 - I am too old (I am 40). Although not stated it is obvious.

too right it isn't stated, that could be expensive if anyone was stupid enough to say that...

2 - I am over qualified.

not quite. True, often PMs are a bit worried about taking on better qualified/experienced diggers as they worry that they might get a bit independent or bolshy, but the other side of this is that it's difficult to see a PhD as relevant qualification (unless you really go out there and demonstrate why it's relevant). Depending on what you did, it might be wiser to go for a post a bit higher up the ladder where a higher degree would actually be demonstrably relevant to what you want to do. There's nothing wrong with saying that your looking for a job at supervisor level, or as a post-ex researcher (hey, invent a job title you're looking for, just sound plausible...), as a unit might think 'hey, here's someone who could come in useful, we could try them out as a digger to see if we can get on with them and take it from there'

3 - Lack of recent experience. Recent being the word.

yup. recent experience is essential. You do need currency, digging has changed, as Gnomeking says, not necessarily for the better in everything, (though that's a bit dark) but there are loads of different tools, techniques and skills that units like to see. And 7 years is a fair while to be out, unless of course you were doing odds and ends of work with a unit or something similar. This is why I'd tend to think what your experience fits you for and target that, chuck in some digging experience and it'll be clear that you're willing to get stuck in (which is another worry for units).

4 - "We have had x applications..." - the classic cop-out with no reason stated as to why I am not suitable for a position paying far less than I could otherwise get.

No cop out. There's lots of really good, experienced and qualified people looking for jobs. There's a couple of thousand fewer jobs and no fewer diggers than there were a couple of years back. People units know will always have an advantage. It always been that way and I can't see it changing. It's a b*****r, but it's human nature.

5 - No reply (email or post). This is common in business and I would hope not in archaeology, where communication with various bodies is important.

Your hope may well be in vain. The IfA has to keep asking people to acknowledge applicants to advertised posts, which doesn't bode well for speculative applicants.

Sorry if this sounds defeatist, but as positive advice, I'd produce 2 or 3 CVs, one showing the full extent of your skills and experience that you can use to target people who might need the skills you have gained and developed through doctoral research and analysis (aim at post-ex analysis, dba research, anything that is based on an ability to network and communicate - push these aspects of teaching and research that you've done, and use the covering letter to really point out what you're looking for. There are fewer jobs like that, but far fewer people who are genuinely qualified for them.

Create another CV for digging jobs. Rather than majoring on employment history and qualifications, present a list of skills and give examples of what you've achieved with those skills that will demonstrate what a sh*t hot digger you are (and doesn't give away your age). Archaeologists are often a bit coy about this as it looks gimmicky, but fundamentally, no units really care about your degree result, let alone your a-levels and GCSEs if they can see that you can dig (and more importantly if you've got the director's best mate as a referee...)

[kevin wooldridge]

I note Rich that you didn't mention 'referees'......Have you thought about this aspect?

I know some employers who use this as the main indicator of someones 'worth' i.e up to date peer review is a more valuable indicator of ones ability than 'paper' qualifications or experience gained 10 or more years ago....especially if the referee is someone who is currently working in the field..