4th May 2007, 02:17 PM
Posted by Beamo:
We mustn't get carried away with the idea that, because our graduates aren't fully up to a professional job straight from uni, that they are therefore less well trained than those in other professions. In my company for instance, all new graduate employees (several hundred a year, in several different professions; the biggest group are civil engineers) are classified as 'Assistant Professionals' and are enrolled on a 3-year Graduate Development Programme. Only at the end of that training programme are they promoted to full 'Professional' status, and even that isn't automatic. Before they reach Chartered status, they are likely to have worked an average of another 10 years, and many never reach that status.
A programme like that would be the envy of most archaeologists, but what it indicates is the acceptance across the professions that no new graduate is qualified to do a fully professional job straight from uni - and archaeologists are no different in that. We should bear this in mind when we compare archaeologists' starting pay with average graduate salaries.
There is some doubt (and debate) as to whether site workers ('diggers', 'site technicians', call them what you will) in archaeology need a degree. My personal view is that they don't, but it is useful, and it is essential for those (most?) who want to go on to supervisory jobs and then off up the ladder.
What is also true is that no-one should go straight into those supervisory jobs from uni, without further site experience and training at the 'digger' level. That would, ideally, be structured through a proper CPD programme, supported by the employers and regulated by (for instance) the IFA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quoteI think this is referring to my previous post, and it's not quite what I meant, so I had better clarify.ome of us are saying that the actual degree does not equip people to carry out the job in the field without extensive further training
We mustn't get carried away with the idea that, because our graduates aren't fully up to a professional job straight from uni, that they are therefore less well trained than those in other professions. In my company for instance, all new graduate employees (several hundred a year, in several different professions; the biggest group are civil engineers) are classified as 'Assistant Professionals' and are enrolled on a 3-year Graduate Development Programme. Only at the end of that training programme are they promoted to full 'Professional' status, and even that isn't automatic. Before they reach Chartered status, they are likely to have worked an average of another 10 years, and many never reach that status.
A programme like that would be the envy of most archaeologists, but what it indicates is the acceptance across the professions that no new graduate is qualified to do a fully professional job straight from uni - and archaeologists are no different in that. We should bear this in mind when we compare archaeologists' starting pay with average graduate salaries.
There is some doubt (and debate) as to whether site workers ('diggers', 'site technicians', call them what you will) in archaeology need a degree. My personal view is that they don't, but it is useful, and it is essential for those (most?) who want to go on to supervisory jobs and then off up the ladder.
What is also true is that no-one should go straight into those supervisory jobs from uni, without further site experience and training at the 'digger' level. That would, ideally, be structured through a proper CPD programme, supported by the employers and regulated by (for instance) the IFA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished