+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The next question: recording (/showthread.php?tid=5111)
The next question: recording - Dinosaur - 12th November 2013
Most of the diggers I've known, even in the commercial world, never rose above digger and now work in McDonalds or a bank, or in a few extreme cases have happily spent decades staying as a digger (actually after a morning re-formatting specialist reports I envy them). And given the shrinkage in workforce since the 'crash', I doubt many of the shrinkees have progressed much in their archaeological careers? There were lots of complaints on here that down-sizing at most units consisted of kicking out the young-uns
The next question: recording - kevin wooldridge - 12th November 2013
A paper at the recent Diggers Forum conference said the average age of a UK archaeologist these days is 42.... bearing in mind that the majority of our workforce are employed in the field it kind of suggests the average age of those who are diggers and not managers is pretty high as well....
The next question: recording - Dinosaur - 13th November 2013
There seems to be a weird age-spread here (at least amongst my last few crews) of people in their mid-late 20s and a group in their 50s (or so they claim), with POs generally falling in the gap (one or two older gits like me in the 'more mature' bracket) - since the diggers at least are mostly peripatetic does that reflect the wider national 'pool' of diggers? - still gives you your average age of 42 :face-thinks:
The next question: recording - Dinosaur - 13th November 2013
Some graphs'd be good
The next question: recording - Martin Locock - 13th November 2013
see p. 96 of http://www.landward.eu/Archaeology%20Labour%20Market%20Intelligence%20Profiling%20the%20Profession%202012-13.pdf
The next question: recording - Martin Locock - 13th November 2013
sorry should be table on p.95 - the graph on p.96 shows gender ratio by age group, not overall populations
Overall:
[TABLE="width: 128"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64"]20-29[/TD]
[TD="class: xl22, width: 64, align: right"]13.12%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]30-39[/TD]
[TD="class: xl22, align: right"]32.11%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]40-49[/TD]
[TD="class: xl22, align: right"]29.00%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]50-59[/TD]
[TD="class: xl22, align: right"]19.56%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]60+[/TD]
[TD="class: xl22, align: right"]6.21%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Source: table 75
The next question: recording - Dinosaur - 14th November 2013
Who's got all the 40-49 bracket? Come on, share them out!
The next question: recording - kevin wooldridge - 14th November 2013
61% of staff are in the age range 30-39 eh!! And only 13% in their 20s....I guess that could be an indication of how hard the recession has affected post-graduate employment in archaeology or perhaps dispels the myth that 'broke and despondent' archaeologists go looking for properly paid jobs or steady careers after a couple of years at the section-face. Either way an interesting and unexpected statistic....or both!!
The next question: recording - Dinosaur - 14th November 2013
Oh, sorry, THANKYOU Martin for the link :face-approve:
The next question: recording - Martin Locock - 14th November 2013
The equivalent figures for 2002-2003:
20-29 26%
30-39 34%
40-49 27%
50-59 12%
60 + 1%
(Profiling the Profession 2002-2003, table 17, p. 22)
so yes the 20s % is lower now