Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
25th November 2008, 05:37 PM
I am sure Armin's mail has clarified the position regarding this bursary, however it is probably not the use of the word 'substantial' that needs editing, but the whole sentence:
'The post is designed to provide the successful candidate with training in the full range of archaeological geophysical work, starting with field-acquisition of data to reporting and archiving according to professional standards'.
as it is clear from Armins mail that the bursary is not intended to provide training in the full range of archaeological geophysical work, if a fairly detailed background in the subject is a pre-requirement.
I know it sounds a tad pedantic, but when there are so few jobs around it, I am sure both applicants and advertiser will benefit from a clear understanding of the needs and requirements for this post.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
25th November 2008, 05:43 PM
Oh and to clarify one point Armin...there is no resentment on my part against this post.
Actually the exact opposite, I think it is a great opportunity at a difficult time. (Although I still think the amount of the bursary should be little higher....). But as 27 Trowels pointed out in his original mail, it is very different to most previous bursaries that the IFA have organised.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
25th November 2008, 06:58 PM
Many thanks for your comments. I do agree with them and indeed wasn't entirely happy with the title of the bursary myself. But when you start putting all the details into the title it really does get awkward.
As stated in my initial reply, the "substantial" field experience admittedly is not quite the right wording and might in the worst case put some good candidates off. I hope not! I will have to think three times when doing another advert. Maybe I need to enrol on a Workplace Bursary in how to write job adverts ...
Armin
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
25th November 2008, 08:16 PM
All grist to the mill... and very open and honest..
I am personally think the Time Team should have stumped up... after all, its their data, which they created.. and made millions out of .. surely they could find the cash... at least to get two people...
I can and feel should take out the word substantial - as to be honest.. if I have substantial experience, I will be making a ,ot more than this opportunity offers...
The case is solid for what the post offers - the loss of a single word may be better than the loss of applicants
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
3rd December 2008, 05:09 PM
Wow, that bursary at the National Trust for Scotland is certainly a lot more money. Looks like an interesting one too. Out of interest, does the IFA fund the basic salary of 14.9K and the host institution decide whether or not to top up the salary?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
3rd December 2008, 05:44 PM
And with Robin Turner too... plus... optional BAJR
thrown in for free.
in answer to your question I don't know... I will find out
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
6th December 2008, 12:02 PM
Oh and by the way... Robin Turner of the NTS, ensured the funding was the 17000, and additional traveling and costs will be met by them... so very generous.. and a damn good deal all round... not that I am biased!
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
