21st June 2004, 02:35 PM
'Well, Monkey, just because someone's been to University doesn't make them any good.'
True but the national average starting salery for graduate with training involved is 18,000, not 12,000.
'I know a number of field archaeologists with no qualifications that are infintely better diggers than new graduates.'
No arguments there (skills gained outside of archaeology and academia can be very valid) but to say that graduate experience and knowledge gained at university should be rewarded with a salery that hardley covers debts gained at University and rent is an insult. The fact is most diggers spend their first five years as professionals having to live like they did as students. Its ok for a while but having no money, not able even to think about getting a morgage and able to do things like go on holiday, is no fun. (How many archaeologists can afford start a family before their 30's)
' New graduates remember may have only done 3-6 weeks training digs - usually run by some bearded academic whose may have spend a few summers working in Winchester in the 1970s, but whose only subsequent experience is, er, running student training digs.
Not equipping people for the real world.'
True of some but not all. Your also only counting digging experience, for archaeology you need a lot of background knowledge, which is best gained at University. Also my field work experience before leaving Universiy was closer to six months, on excavations with supervisors who work currently at contract archaeology units. I have also found that there is a lot to be said for University research excavations, as the time constraints of contract archaeology, far to often leads to bad archaeology methods and questionable health and safety.
'12,000 for someone with no experience is actually quite a good wage, if they do six months at 12,000 and have LEARNT something along the way then progression upwards is quite likely.'
Good wage don't make me laugh. It should be a good salary of 15,000+, after the 6 month experience is gained. Most training salaries at the moment are closer to 11,000 and after 6 months experience and up to 3-5 years of experience 12,500. That frankly is pants. Add in the lack of job security, (I got laid off 3 times in the space of one month at one unit)then its all a big joke. Also their you go again with the no experience statement. That is an insult to any hard working graduate, who just wants to be able to live on there income clear there debts and not add any more.
If you want good archaeologists, (I know far to many good archaeologists who left over the poor pay, lack of stability and few chances of promotion) then the salary have to be competitive with other professions trainee salaries for graduates.
Training is important but salaries need to be set for graduate training. Not at apprentice levels, for someone straight out of school. This is at the crux of the point view i'm putting forward.
Put simply a graduate can not be expected to live off 12,000. The starting salary I suggested of 14,000, is still below the national average for anyone at graduate level.
True but the national average starting salery for graduate with training involved is 18,000, not 12,000.
'I know a number of field archaeologists with no qualifications that are infintely better diggers than new graduates.'
No arguments there (skills gained outside of archaeology and academia can be very valid) but to say that graduate experience and knowledge gained at university should be rewarded with a salery that hardley covers debts gained at University and rent is an insult. The fact is most diggers spend their first five years as professionals having to live like they did as students. Its ok for a while but having no money, not able even to think about getting a morgage and able to do things like go on holiday, is no fun. (How many archaeologists can afford start a family before their 30's)
' New graduates remember may have only done 3-6 weeks training digs - usually run by some bearded academic whose may have spend a few summers working in Winchester in the 1970s, but whose only subsequent experience is, er, running student training digs.
Not equipping people for the real world.'
True of some but not all. Your also only counting digging experience, for archaeology you need a lot of background knowledge, which is best gained at University. Also my field work experience before leaving Universiy was closer to six months, on excavations with supervisors who work currently at contract archaeology units. I have also found that there is a lot to be said for University research excavations, as the time constraints of contract archaeology, far to often leads to bad archaeology methods and questionable health and safety.
'12,000 for someone with no experience is actually quite a good wage, if they do six months at 12,000 and have LEARNT something along the way then progression upwards is quite likely.'
Good wage don't make me laugh. It should be a good salary of 15,000+, after the 6 month experience is gained. Most training salaries at the moment are closer to 11,000 and after 6 months experience and up to 3-5 years of experience 12,500. That frankly is pants. Add in the lack of job security, (I got laid off 3 times in the space of one month at one unit)then its all a big joke. Also their you go again with the no experience statement. That is an insult to any hard working graduate, who just wants to be able to live on there income clear there debts and not add any more.
If you want good archaeologists, (I know far to many good archaeologists who left over the poor pay, lack of stability and few chances of promotion) then the salary have to be competitive with other professions trainee salaries for graduates.
Training is important but salaries need to be set for graduate training. Not at apprentice levels, for someone straight out of school. This is at the crux of the point view i'm putting forward.
Put simply a graduate can not be expected to live off 12,000. The starting salary I suggested of 14,000, is still below the national average for anyone at graduate level.