There are two distinct problems at present:
1. There is a mismatch between the numbers of people coming through the
courses at present, and the number of short-term jobs available,
particularly through HLF grants. It may be that pay and conditions are
putting people off the courses, but I think our profession still interests a
great many people: the problem is more one of capacity on the courses, and
the costs of going on them - few can afford to finance themselves.
Unfortunately, the HLF does not fund training per se...
2. The present jobs boom is based on soft money for short-term projects,
which not only makes life awkward for candidates, but tends to result in an
inefficient high turnover of staff, making project delivery more difficult.
A friend working in the University archaeology sector, where they face
similar problems, tells me that he has persuaded his employers to create a
number of permanent, but part-time (one third time) posts, with the
expectation that the remaining two-thirds time will be made up from grants.
This gives grant-funded employees a stake in the system (eg the posts are
pensionable), and has been successful in reducing turnover: so far, the
university has not had to 'carry' the one-third cost, due to lack of grants,
but of course, this is always a risk. Perhaps this is something we should be
considering?
|