Q: how many archaeologists does it take to ruin an industry?

[Odinn]

Does the industry expect this of Graduates?

Or do Graduates think that because they have a degree they are already professional archaeologists and do not believe they need any further training? Fast track promotion and unrealistic pay expectations is my experience.

I don't think the industry does expect graduates to turn up able to dig from day one. It would be nice though and I have argued with various university types that they should be offering more vocational options too, but to no great effect. After all, if the graduates are prepared by their university course for life in commercial archaeology in that way then they may well progress faster.

It has been my experience that many (not all) graduates come onto site thinking they know it all and that they should be running the place from the outset. This is particularly true of those with Masters degrees and PhDs. They don't seem to want to serve their time in the field and learn the ropes. I have seen a number of new graduates walk out of the job after only a day or two when they realised what the job actually involved and what their place in it was.

Since training is the issue under discussion, another of my pet peeves is that many staff want it all handed to them on a plate. We have the annual review system to discuss their progress and identify training needs, but they see it as an unnecessary waste of their time, because they claim nothing ever comes of it. However, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because they do not try to make it work. Where staff have embraced the system and used it to their advantage by actively seeking the training opportunities and justifying them against the identified needs in the annual review system then they get the training and progress within the unit. Where they sit back and whinge about the lack of training without trying to help themselves they get stuck in place and don't progress. As a manager, back when I was, I could do some things to help staff with training, but I had a lot else on my plate too and could not spend all my days trawling around for courses to send them on. When we did organise training related to fieldwork, rather than all the mandatory council courses that we had to do, all too often all we got was complaining that this was not the training they wanted or that they were wasting their time indoors when they should be in the field. It seems to me that it does not matter what you do, people will just complain anyway and brand you as being against them despite your attempts to help them.

[Kel]

Does the industry expect this of Graduates?

Or do Graduates think that because they have a degree they are already professional archaeologists and do not believe they need any further training? Fast track promotion and unrealistic pay expectations is my experience.

Probably a bit of both in reality. Graduate expectations in any field can be inflated. Sometimes that's the fault of their institution or sometimes they've just made that assumption. I've interviewed plenty of them over the years and sometimes they just don't grasp the reality of their situation, because nobody told them and they haven't done the background research. A few unsuccessful job applications/interviews usually puts this to bed. However, I saw this attitude gradually decline as more people went to university. Widening participation carries its own problems, but more recent graduates generally grasped that having a degree on its own no longer marked them out as particularly "special" as they may have been back in the 80s.

As for the industry expecting graduates to be able to work fresh out of uni - I've gained the impression that this is a constant gripe on this board. Perhaps it isn't and the posting participants just aren't representative of the industry?

[Dinosaur]

No, it is.

My experience is that even now the vast majority of new graduates fall into the 'think they know it all' bracket, and there are plenty who seem to have been brainwashed by academic staff into regarding commercial archaeologists as some sort of lower order of being and not really 'archaeologists' at all....personally I always take the greatest pleasure as a 'field' archaeologist in rubbing academics' faces in it when I catch them talking talking ill-informed c**p (don't even think about mentioning 'structured deposits', I may have to go and have a lie-down), at the end of the day it's us who produce all the data that they then willfully twist to fit their own private little agendas... :face-stir:

[Kel]

I think the ability to keep your gob shut and your nose firmly to whatever grindstone you're allocated, is an under-appreciated quality for many people - not just the graduates and not just in archaeology!

[P Prentice]

enough chips here for a grand supper alright, though some old ones are drowning in vinegar and perhaps need a little more salt.
culinarians beware! an industry collapses because the chips are soggy

i might do 'house of cards' next, or maybe ' the wood for the trees'

[Jack]

I think Odin hit the nail squarely on the head!:face-approve:

[the invisible man]

I expect he/she has been on a nail-hitting course!

I don't know what proportion of new grads the know-all thing applies to, but it is not peculiar to archaeology. Sorry to bang on about my previous life again (the one with good pay, holidays....) but there was quite a percentage of year out placement students and part 2 (almost qualified architects) in that profession. I have to say that in the majority of cases this was simply enthusiasm and most of the young scamps quickly got the hang of it after getting over the shock. A few - just a few - however continue to protest and argue that they were right and everyone else was wrong and frankly were of little use to man or beast.

There is something of a society wide reluctance to start at the bottom though - encouraged by governments who think that university is the only way and is right for everyone. In my day (cue brass band music) a common route into many professions, particularly the "practical" ones, was to start at 16, attend day release college, and begin with menial tasks - running errands, taking drawings to the printers, doing dyeline prints, that sort of thing, while learning first to draw and then what to draw. One suspects that the youth today consider all that beneath them.

Now, please shoot me, I'm sounding like my dad............

[Sith]

There is something of a society wide reluctance to start at the bottom though - encouraged by governments who think that university is the only way and is right for everyone. In my day (cue brass band music) a common route into many professions, particularly the "practical" ones, was to start at 16, attend day release college, and begin with menial tasks - running errands, taking drawings to the printers, doing dyeline prints, that sort of thing, while learning first to draw and then what to draw. One suspects that the youth today consider all that beneath them.

Now, please shoot me, I'm sounding like my dad............

I think that t' youth of today does consider 'working' their way up beneath them. Many seem obsessed with the wages of success but ignore what it takes to get there (ignoring those who make it instantly thanks to reality TV).

I remember hearing some urban London youths being interviewed on Radio 4 about a voluntary programme they had taken part in to get a taste of working in the arts. After talking about his brilliant time working ata recording studio, one boy was asked if he planned to go into the music business, perhaps working his way up through a studio like the one he'd been working in. His reply was 'No way! I'm a singer, not a tea boy!'

[P Prentice]

I think that t' youth of today does consider 'working' their way up beneath them. Many seem obsessed with the wages of success but ignore what it takes to get there (ignoring those who make it instantly thanks to reality TV).

I remember hearing some urban London youths being interviewed on Radio 4 about a voluntary programme they had taken part in to get a taste of working in the arts. After talking about his brilliant time working ata recording studio, one boy was asked if he planned to go into the music business, perhaps working his way up through a studio like the one he'd been working in. His reply was 'No way! I'm a singer, not a tea boy!'

putting aside the crass generlisations, surely such fecklessness just leaves the door open for those who want to do the work, learn a trade and make a contribution? so why then does it inspire such verbosity in an industry apparently creaking under its own weight?

[Unitof1]

I think that the down turn is a good thing because I think that the new people coming into archaeology will not think that it owes them a living. Most people who came into archaeology before just got lucky and once they were surrounded by similar poorly paid people got smug over being promoted to supervisors or project officers for a day for just a few pennies more but nowhere near what you needed to raise a family. But the big mistake that they made was thinking that some small planning guidance reference or mention in European treaties was good enough to try and get CPD or PPD out of. I think that a lot of people with degrees thought that they were the bees knees when they joined units that used to talk about professionalism and standards in archaeology and then noticed that most of the directors did not have degrees in archaeology so they felt like they were being fast tracked for glory from their interview on wards. They probably did not realise that they were taken on because the unit had picked up too much work and did not have anybody else.