Osborne’s October 20th cuts – a personal assessment

I made the effort today to read through reports on the spending cuts announced yesterday evening. It’s clear that they are going to have particularly pernicious affects on the poor and the disabled, but I was actually surprised to find that they’ll have a pretty clear affect on my own situation.

Usually I find it hard to register such often vague, veiled and complex economic announcements in terms of my own position, but presumably because the cuts are so wide reaching and so brutal it’s been rather easy to see how this will affect myself and other archaeologists.

On a day-to-day level, the increases in travel costs will make it increasingly expensive to visit my partner in Brighton and will increase the burden of travel costs within London. As these form the third and second largest parts of my budget respectively, this is likely to have a noticeable impact on my day-to-day spending. If it really does result in the predicted 30% rise in costs by the time I finish, that’ll have a major impact on whether I can afford to spend all of my third year in London. If I have to chose to live at home, that’s likely to have a negative impact on my work due to restricted access to books, papers, laboratories and pastoral support.

Considering the longer term and what will happen to me after I graduate the 40% cut to university teaching budgets and the fact that I am a humanities/social science person suggests that the academic jobs I might have hoped for after graduating will be few and far between.

I could fall back to public sector heritage management, which I have been doing on and off between university courses, but I think we all know that’s likely to be disproportionately squeezed. Cultural Resource Managment/Heritage is likely to be seen as non-essential like libraries and youth centres, and unlike them no one sees the HER/SMR or County archaeologist on the high street. The public aren’t likely to protest if HER/SMR staff, who are often on short contracts, aren’t renewed and those centres slowly slip into mothballs. So no job there for me.

I don’t have much experience excavating, but I might pass as a finds or post-ex specialist for a unit. However beyond the large public works still supported by the government (I’m looking at that A11 expansion!) I don’t see a lot of promise for private sector archaeology either. The field hasn’t picked up much since 2009 when redundancies were particular active, and if Osborne’s gamble doesn’t work and the private sector doesn’t pick up the slack then new buildings won’t go ahead and work will be scarce for archaeological units. With a good chunk of archaeology’s well-qualified and experienced work force already unemployed, I don’t fancy my chances hitting that field.

The only ray of sunshine in my job prospects upon graduation is the free museums, which the goverment is continuing to support (for how long I am uncertain). So the British Museum, who actually employ people in my specialisation, is still a good destination. But of course the local museums who run off council support are likely to again suffer the axe labelled ‘non-essential’, so I don’t fancy my chances there much either.

With the predicted 40,000 job cuts for teachers, it’s not even like I could re-train for that!

In short, it looks like a pinch in the short-term, and devastation to the majority of my job prospects in the medium-term. We all guessed the government didn’t value archaeology, heritage or humanities teaching for more than lip-service and its potential for beautiful photo opportunities, but I didn’t expect it to be so clearly demonstrated.

Archaeology in Crisis?

I received an email a while back and completely forgot to mention this:

Schlanger, N., and Aitchison, K. (eds) (2010), Archaeology and the Global Economic Crisis. Tervuren: Culture Lab Éditions.

http://ace-archaeology.eu/fichiers/25Archaeology-and-the-crisis.pdf

Note, i.a., chapters 4 (by Kenneth Aitchison, with annex 1 at end of volume) and 5 (by Anthony Sinclair) on the prospects for archaeology in the UK.

I haven’t read it myself, but that’s because it’s 150 pages long and I’m not working in commercial archaeology at the moment. But I imagine that considering it’s joint authored by Kenny Aitchison it’ll be very relevant to the UK situation.

Back-to-front attitudes and dangerous academics

I’ve been in the process of writing a ‘what PhD students want’ post for ages, and unfortunately it’s going to remain unfinished for a while whilst I hurtle towards a couple of large deadlines.

However we did have a meeting this week between the PhD students and the Graduate Tutor, which was very interesting. It was supposed to help reassure us on matters like the viva and upgrade. It wasn’t at all successful in this, because it brought home the fact that if you over-run (say you get deferred for major changes as a result of the viva), UCL fine you every three months.

Can you believe that? It’s like saying – we know you tried hard, but you weren’t quite up to it, and whilst you try and rewrite your PhD we’re going to make sure you have to get a job as well. It’s something like £400 every three months. How utterly idiotic and counter-intuitive is that?

Of course, I know why they do it. It’s because they want to improve their completion rates. All universities have to do this, if they want to keep getting money from the Research Councils. But from my perspective that seems rather back to front. How about putting students needs first, ahead of the university corporate’s needs?

In other news, I wanted to share this gem of a quote with you. I was walking to the station after finishing optical microscopy (I’ll post some of the awesome pictures soon), and I overheard an academic talking to one of his PhD students. Unfortunately I don’t know his department or subject, but he said this:

“About 50% of academics are nasty, stupid, problematic… I wouldn’t let them near my students.”

Pick your examiners carefully…