26th October 2008, 09:43 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Hal Dalwood This is turning into a conversation between two people, but here goes...
There is not such a simple lonk between [u]archaeological </u> skills and pay scales.
Is it too weasel-ish to say that I agree with some of the things that both of you are saying....
The problem I fear is encapuslated in Hal's last sentence. Whilst we probably all want to see archaeologists paid a fair whack and for their skills and experienced to be recognised, the truth is that there is limited ddemand in the archaeological job market at its upper end and for specialists.
All of us who submit ourselves or are forced into relying on the vissitudes of market forces to making our living in archaeology apply for and often accept jobs that could (and perhaps should) be done by less experienced staff or put our specialisms or personal work interests on the backburner sometimes for weeks but more often for years. Why? Becuase as I see it we have no option. Employment at any level of disadvantage is normally better than unemployment, but with your ivory tower soul intact.
My problem with the IFA and CPD is not that it is particualrly arduous or even time consuming, (surely their suggested form of recording is no more than a well documented CV should contain). My problem is no form of CPD is ever going to create jobs for archaeologists whilst the archaeological employment market in the UK is in its current form. And that at the end of the day is what will deter archaeologists from bothering with documenting CPD, there being no real benefit at the end of the day.