Do you have field experience? If you do then the best thing to do is to apply to CRM jobs posted here which are for Field Tech positions.The minimum for most of these is a field school and a degree in the profession or anthropology. The market for field tech jobs is weak right now and that may be why you are not having any luck finding a position. One thing that would help with getting the experience is to do volunteer work or apply for internships. The more you do the better off you will be. The main thing is to try and get a wide range of experiences under your belt to build up your resume.

As for Grad schools, I know the trend the past several years has been for them to look for applicants who have field experience. This is done for several reasons from, the candidate being serious about the profession and understanding the hard work and dedication it takes to do the job to not having to train the applicant in the basics of field methodology from Phase I's to Phase III's. 

Don't worry man, that overwhelmed feeling doesn't last long. Do you have a field school? If not, then do that. If you have one and you did it years ago go do another, or volunteer for the Park Service or Forest Service. They are always looking for volunteers to do this sort of thing, that way, they don't have to hire anyone, ha! http://www.passportintime.com is the Forest Service program. Also, www.volunteer.gov is a good one too. Then go work in CRM for a year, or for the Feds, then go get your masters.

Welcome William,

A little browsing through the old threads (a bit more difficult now than it used to be I think) will illustrate a long and storied discussion on this topic. These, however, usually boil down to one thing: a lot of experienced people having the same observation that they would rather have whole crew of undereducated (by the Sec. of the Interior Standards) experienced techs and crew chiefs to a bunch of folks that satisfy the regs but couldnt do anything asked of them, like use a compass, orient a map, locate one's self on said map, manage a crew, ensure crew safety....

My recommendation, get the experience, because it will help you answer a more important and fundamental question of why do you want to go to gradschool. When you know why you will be much better prepared to evaluate schools and their programs, and more importantly be able to take advantage of the range of classes being offered - there's more to CRM and archaeology than just CRM law and practice and archaeology methods and theory.

Cheers,
Richard

get some field experience first.  Just keeping seeding those resumes and enquiring about fieldwork and youll land something.  Once you do you'll soon discover that those that went straight through may know a lot but when it comes to seeing it in the field and implementing a plan, nothing beats experience.  Like everyone else said, experience looks great on your graduate application.  I think that played a major role in my aaceptance this year.


Good Luck

P.S. try looking at some places in the midwest, they seem to be doing a lot from last I worked.  Try ACS Group or Gray & Pape.

just to add my two cents to the discussion. i went right to grad school after graduating with my BA and wish I had not. Once I got out with an MA after my name, finding a job was damn near impossible. I had to accept low paying field tech positions because I had very little field experience...loads of academic experience though. If I had it to do over again, I would have worked a couple of years with a BA as a field tech, went back to school for my MA, then returned to the field....
like I said, my two cents.......

I just recently worked with a girl who had her BA, MA, GIS certificate and zero experience. She worked for this one company for one year, and then decided to go back to school in a medical field...

Be sure to know that this is what you want to be doing before wasting your time and money on education. Get experience, paid or unpaid (and being in the field long enough, you start to see how there's not that much difference between the two), shovelbum around for a while and then decide if you want to pursue an actual career in archaeology.

I'll be the voice of dissent...

I really wish I would have gone straight into grad school after finishing my undergrad.  Every year you delay, the harder it is to go back.  I told myself I was going to go back after a year but it wound up taking a lot longer.

I think experience is important but unless you're running a project, writing a report, or conducting the analysis, the vast majority of CRM experience isn't terribly useful.  Digging holes along a transect for months on end doesn't really teach you much.  You can't author a paper, put together a poster, or give a presentation when you have no role in the interpretation of the sites you work on.  I've known more than a few field techs who worked in the field for many years yet can't identify artifacts beyond "misc. historic" or "lithics".

It is really hard to go back, especially the whole business of taking the GRE.

Sorry KB, but I'm going to disagree with certain points here:

"I think experience is important but unless you're running a project, writing a report, or conducting the analysis, the vast majority of CRM experience isn't terribly useful.  Digging holes along a transect for months on end doesn't really teach you much."

That is not what CRM is supposed to do. We dont do CRM to educate ourselves, we do it to inform decision-makers of the importance or lack thereof of cultural resources that may be affected by proposed actions. Along the way one becomes familiar with laws, regulations, courses of actions, cultural history, artifact classes, terminologies, method and theories, but only if you (third person, non-descript) and other practitioners are keen on learning and sharing these things.

The actual digging of holes for months on end is not supposed to help you learn how to write a report, it is supposed to inform your report. Grad school wont explain why you dug holes for ages, but people who know what they are doing should be able to explain it.  While a good CRM program at university may teach method and theory, or CRM law, etc. there just is no replacement for "doing." It's rather like reading a drivers manual and thinking you know how to drive a car simply because you've read the manual and passed the written exam. You haven't actually driven the car.

"You can't author a paper, put together a poster, or give a presentation when you have no role in the interpretation of the sites you work on."

If you (third person, non-descript) are not paying attention to what's coming out of the ground or what you are recording during survey and forming an interpretation as you go along then I dont know what you are doing in this business. Because of their high billing rates, many PIs never see the field that you are working in, and as such, have to rely on both the data you collect, AND your impression and interpretation of that data. The very process of writing stuff up in the field is interpretive - what you decide to call something is interpretive.

I wouldn't expect tyros to be able to do the tasks outlined above, but certainly someone who has a few years experience, and certainly someone who has bothered to educate themselves, either through school, professional development, attending meetings, reading reports, etc. should be able to author papers, reports, and give presentations.

I've known more than a few field techs who worked in the field for many years yet can't identify artifacts beyond "misc. historic" or "lithics".

That is more likely a reflection on either the learning desire of the "techs" themselves, or the firm's willingness to instruct their employees, and keep employed those who really know and care about what they are doing, rather than one not having an M.A.

Possession of an M.A. does not automatically imbue one with gifted powers to describe things, let alone an ability to write reports, give presentations, formulate theoretical frameworks, identify traditional cultural properties, archaeological or historical districts, etc....

We've all discussed the fresh M.A. that couldn't find their way out of the field vehicle, but were "in charge" in previous discussions. There are plenty of B.A.s and others that are just the same. Educational status actually is a poor reflector of a capacity to do anything other than jump through the hoops set up by educational institutions. I know of a number of B.A.s that can out do many Ph.Ds. with respect to doing CRM compliance work, including report writing, giving presentations, getting the contract in the first place....

As Tom King would write, "It Depends."

FireArch and I disagree with most of your points :-)

That is not what CRM is supposed to do. We dont do CRM to educate ourselves, we do it to inform decision-makers of the importance or lack thereof of cultural resources that may be affected by proposed actions.

Speak for yourself.  I wouldn't be in CRM if it weren't to a) better myself and b) contribute to the field of archaeology and historic preservation as a whole.  

Along the way one becomes familiar with laws, regulations, courses of actions, cultural history, artifact classes, terminologies, method and theories, but only if you (third person, non-descript) and other practitioners are keen on learning and sharing these things

Yes, absolutely.  But in the framework of this discussion, I was referring to the likelihood of a typical BA level, Field Tech I gaining valuable and relevant field experience as a shovelbum.  I'd be hesitant to say that digging 2,000 STPs on a 500 mile gas pipeline, where 99% are negative, would teach anyone about "laws, regulations, courses of actions, cultural history...". 

My experience as a low level tech was predominately "bag it and move on".  I didn't attend consultations, write work plans, develop culture histories, etc.  I lived in the field and occasional got to work on some very interesting sites.  But even then, I worked on my own unit, took good notes, etc. but somebody else did the interpretation and report writing.  By the time analysis started, I was already three states away working for a different company.

After about five years, I was lucky enough to land a fairly decent Field Supervisor position -- I wrote reports, lead projects, dealt with clients, personnel management, etc.  I was very lucky, as many people never get the opportunity to do this at the BA level.  On the downside, I was very complacent and it only delayed me going back to school.

I wouldn't expect tyros to be able to do the tasks outlined above, but certainly someone who has a few years experience, and certainly someone who has bothered to educate themselves, either through school, professional development, attending meetings, reading reports, etc. should be able to author papers, reports, and give presentations.

Again, I was commenting within the framework of somebody who wants to shovelbum after getting a BA.  I've never been to a conference where a field tech presented a paper based on the "no find" highway widening that he worked on for 3 weeks.  I would even say that it's also incredibly rare somebody to write or present a paper for a project that he either didn't supervise or conduct some kind of analysis on.

Possession of an M.A. does not automatically imbue one with gifted powers to describe things, let alone an ability to write reports, give presentations, formulate theoretical frameworks, identify traditional cultural properties, archaeological or historical districts, etc....

Of course not.  But it absolutely does open doors to allow somebody the opportunity to play a more active role in project management and the excavation, interpretation, analysis, and write up of archaeological sites.  As it is, the field of CRM is very segregated and BA-level archaeologists are often not included with non-field aspects of projects and laboratory experience is limited to scrubbing artifacts and size grading lithics.  Every year, it seems like more firms get more dependent on temporary workers who aren't included in the analysis of sites but are let go the day the fieldwork ends.

Educational status actually is a poor reflector of a capacity to do anything...

It may be but so long as regulatory agencies and employers want to see a graduate degree, the opportunities of what you can realistically do with a BA will be severely limited.

"bag it and move on". 
100% of all private sector I've done, thank god I work for the Feds.

Capwill

  There has been a bit of discussion on your questions which seems to suggest going one way or the other, but I am going to try a new approach for you - one that has worked well for many folks I know.  - do both.  Try to get into an MA program - but spend your time up till then, and as much time as you can on breaks, getting some real experience. summers, holidays, whenever.  That can come in the form of field schools or CRM jobs, but the more and varied experience you have, the better for your career in the long run.  You should also look into helping write up whatever you can.  Even if just your own field observations to submit to the reprot authors.  Every voice that has responded so far has made valid points - but none of them need to be mutually exclusive.

My own experience was just that - combining school and work. You do have to beware the pitfalls of endless STPs and getting bored - and of spending evenings "letting it go".  Career wise, it is a great help to stay interested after showering, to ask the higher ups what is going on, get involved where you can, learn how to do everything from lithic ID to running the transit station (are they still used by anyone?) and making sure you understand the how and why.  Only field experiences can give you a lot of those opportunties.  ON the other hand, you need to develop your theoretical/intellecutal side and those writing skills as well if you want to be taken seriously.  Some of my favorite colleagues to work with today started out as students/newbies - the ones that were always asking questions and looking for (and able to handle) more repsonsibilities. 
Good Luck

This is one of those questions that seems very much to be a case of "YMMV," as the Internet-aficionados might say, or your mileage may vary.  It's so contextual and personal that one can only present ones experience and, from there, ask how an individual poster might see those experiences applying to them.

Just so you have a brief outline of my own experiences, I'm a Brit in America working as a "crew chief," or at least a glorified version of one (don't ask).  My education is exclusively within the UK where, once I had finished a BSc. Archaeology I went straight into a MSc. in osteology/palaeopathology.  After completing that I decided I wanted some field experience, so I worked for a brief period on the "circuit" (very brief) before turning to the Ivory Tower for a Ph.D.  Not so much ivory, but by the end of it I went back into the field which is where I remain today.

Again, though, I couldn't recommend whether it would be better to go for a field experience straight out of an undergraduate degree, or whether it would be "better" to go for a post-graduate degree.

What I will say, though, is that it is important that field experience is not conflated with a post-graduate degree.  A Masters degree doesn't make you more competent in the field, just as digging a billion STPs doesn't necessarily make you that more qualified to write a Phase I report.

Do they prepare you for different experiences, though?  That's a more relevant question, at least in my mind. 

To Capwill73/William Strange: 
I'm afraid that you're running into a somewhat traditional problem in the archaeological field, at least in my experience.  Do you have a qualified field school under your belt?  In the US this can sometimes qualify for relevant experience, depending on the field school.  If you don't have one already, perhaps you might explore one of these as a relatively cheap way of getting that experience in the area that you want?

If that's not possible, see if you can volunteer in the area while you're looking for a "real" job.  It's not the best situation, but at least you can be productive in the interest area while you're searching.  

As they say, "You've got to have a job to get a job."  I would suggest that where it is not possible to have a job, showing the willingness to work in the field might be the next best solution.  

With regards to a possible post-graduate experience?  Do you have specific passions or interests that you feel would be best served by a Masters degree (or more)?  I would suggest that Masters degrees are wonderful things to do (especially in this economic climate) if you can afford to do them and, further, there is an end objective.  While it was true at one time, I think that we must all realise that the idea that a Masters degree entitles you to a certain wage or position are times of the past.