6th July 2005, 10:51 AM
You want to know why? Strangely, and I know this may be hard to take, not all CVs are what they seem. Embellishment and enhancement, economy with the truth and even downright lying are not unknown.
'Reading between the lines of a CV' - what does that mean? eg do people change employer regularly beaucse they are keen to experience lots of different types of archaeology, or because they are found out as being useless and are moved on? Which view do you take, without finding out directly from someone who has employed them?
Why two? - because it is not unknown for people to put down their mate as a single referee, and on the other side of the coin, also to give balance to protect the interests of the employee by not just taking one assessment of people's abilities. Putting down your university tutor is no use by the way if they have no experience of your fieldwork abilities.
The reason for referees is to get verification of details on a CV and for confirmation via personal experience of the skills and character of the person who may be employed. I would rather know before someone is entrusted with excavation and recording of archaeological remains whether they have any idea about what they are doing and whether they are going to fit into the team. And at a fundamental level, are they honest?
Painful as it for the idealists out there, the issue of money is also an issue. Why waste staff and admin time (which equals very real money) employing someone who you then immediately have to get rid of?
Or maybe we should just give a job to every muppet who send us a CV as seems to be the implication?
'Reading between the lines of a CV' - what does that mean? eg do people change employer regularly beaucse they are keen to experience lots of different types of archaeology, or because they are found out as being useless and are moved on? Which view do you take, without finding out directly from someone who has employed them?
Why two? - because it is not unknown for people to put down their mate as a single referee, and on the other side of the coin, also to give balance to protect the interests of the employee by not just taking one assessment of people's abilities. Putting down your university tutor is no use by the way if they have no experience of your fieldwork abilities.
The reason for referees is to get verification of details on a CV and for confirmation via personal experience of the skills and character of the person who may be employed. I would rather know before someone is entrusted with excavation and recording of archaeological remains whether they have any idea about what they are doing and whether they are going to fit into the team. And at a fundamental level, are they honest?
Painful as it for the idealists out there, the issue of money is also an issue. Why waste staff and admin time (which equals very real money) employing someone who you then immediately have to get rid of?
Or maybe we should just give a job to every muppet who send us a CV as seems to be the implication?