Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
15th October 2005, 03:45 PM
I agree with you on this front. The first stage PIFA is enormously undervalued: when people have asked me whether to apply or not I have tended to advise them to wait and get to AIFA. If degrees are enough to be a Practitioner, there really does need to be more stages to make it mean something, with much more weight to actual 'real' experience. I no particular rub with people who choose to persue the academic side of archaeology, in fact the two strands are vital, but the pursuit of degrees and masters doth not automatically make good Field Archaeologists.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
15th October 2005, 04:01 PM
To quibble, (not like me, I know) for PIFA you actually do need 6 months experience with a relevant degree, two years without a degree. So what's wrong with being a PIFA until you can go for AIFA - it may be a smoother path to tramsfer grades than to apply straight for AIFA, I don't know.
I gather that the thinking is that Associates as seen as doing diiferent things to a Practioner, and is seen as having a higher level of responsibilty. Withing your grade you can be registered, thus formally acknowledged, as having certain spoecialist skills or experience.
To be honest I'm totally convinced that ANY grades are needed at all. You are either a member, or you're not, whether your degree is still wet or you have the chair at Oxford. Other professions have gone down this route.
There is spomething a bit disturbing about the thought of a wet degree though, or is it me?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
15th October 2005, 10:22 PM
Lets not forget guys-PIFA is as far as it goes for coal face archaeologists. AIFA and above is for those report writing and managerial types. Field archaeologists are PIFA and thats yer lot matey. One can have twenty years worth of field experience and have accrued ridiculous amounts of skills and guess what....yep-PIFA.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
16th October 2005, 10:12 AM
I agree inv man that joining the institution is the important thing, but if we have grades they need to reflect expereience properly. My point, and exemplified by Trolls 20yrs experience, is that their is a gulf between a digger with 6mths experience and a seasoned digger (like Troll) which isn't adequately reflected in the grades.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
16th October 2005, 11:26 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Lets not forget guys-PIFA is as far as it goes for coal face archaeologists. AIFA and above is for those report writing and managerial types. Field archaeologists are PIFA and thats yer lot matey. One can have twenty years worth of field experience and have accrued ridiculous amounts of skills and guess what....yep-PIFA.
Quite agree Troll!!.
I hear a rumour however that the IFA 'committee' have been discussing a proposal that MIFA status should be granted to archaeologists with relevant field experience who for various reasons have decided not to accept the 'Black Spot' of archaeological promotion to consultancy, transport management, CV shuffling or tool maintenance managership. If I hear of any developments BAJR will be the next to hear!
Personally I think that the IFA would (overnight) become 100% more popular amongst the 'chattering classes' if it did recognise that field expertise alone was worthy of the highest grade of membership.
I of course, about to enter my 20th year of AIFA-dom, would resist the temptation to have to change my business cards for the sake of an initial.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
16th October 2005, 12:26 PM
Troll loves you! Just on a technical point-I don`t have 20 years experience.Not only that, I take my hat off to those of you who have managed to put up with all this crap for so long!
Back to the point....
There are plenty of non-field archaeologists out there carrying MIFA.Sadly, they sometimes escape from the rigours of life and fall back into the field.The archaeology and the field staff then suffer badly.On a legal note, it clearly states in IFA literature that MIFA members are the only ones recommended by them. This is a potential nightmare legally. There`s MIFA and there`s MIFA. I have to say that I`m not particularly interested in any more letters-got enough with what others call me!!!! I will say however, that if and when the IFA make some changes, I would hope that their membership would grow exponentially.Good for them........at the minute, it`s a bizarre state of affairs-if one is a field archaeologist- the accreditation system of the INSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS denies one Membership! If one is a long-standing field archaeologist, the Institute will only provide a membership level that acknowledges 6 months experience. Interesting, wonder if this is a contrived way of keeping wages down? Anyhoo, enough cynicism for a sunday morning.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
16th October 2005, 01:59 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
If one is a long-standing field archaeologist, the Institute will only provide a membership level that acknowledges 6 months experience. Interesting, wonder if this is a contrived way of keeping wages down?
Of course one of the advantages of the IFA accepting that field responsibilites alone could qualify for MIFA status is that rates of pay would increase.
The current minimum for undertaking 'MIFA' duties is ?19,700 pa. (?377 pw). The current average pay of an experienced 'digger' (based upon BAJR adverts in the past 6 months) is ?271 pw.
If I were a 'Sunday morning cynic' I wouldn't go out ordering the new sofa just yet.....
