Graduate

Unpaid internships & graduate quandaries

I’m in a muddle.  On the one hand, I don’t agree that unpaid internships are reasonable.  On the other hand, I’m aware that some graduates get great benefit from time in these roles.  For example, Mario Creatura says that his unpaid internship with the 1994 Group was fantastic and something he would do all over again.

photo by amortize

photo by amortize

Now the 1994 Group is seeking more graduates for unpaid roles.  These are part-time, typically two days each week, lasting a couple of months.  While Mario would heartily recommend this from his past experience, not everyone is happy.

Co-director of Intern Aware, Ben Lyons, told The Guardian:

“Working for free is impossible for the majority of graduates.  We cannot have a situation in which young people are only able to start a career in education through the support of the Bank of Mum and Dad. It goes without saying that it is socially unjust if affluent graduates are first in line for the best career opportunities. But it is also unfair on hard-pressed parents to have to bankroll their kids, and it is bad for the organisations if the best jobs go the richest graduates, rather than the most able.”

I can fully understand why Mario endorses the internship on offer with the 1994 Group.  It sounds like a great opportunity.  He says:

“As a graduate, much maligned by the state and society as a whole, it was refreshing and downright encouraging to be finally working in an organisation that truly valued your work. We weren’t there to make tea and coffee; we were there to learn and work as if we were professionals within the sector. To learn from respected officers, attend prestigious conferences, assist research on influential policy and write speeches to mass audiences was to help with the essential day-to-day running of an organisation that prides itself on working for the student experience; high quality research and world-class teaching.” [Source]

So far, so positive.  I am happy that other former interns on the 1994 Group intake have also come out in praise of the scheme.  On this front, the 1994 Group can be heartily congratulated for offering such a great service to graduates.  There is clearly no issue here.

Nevertheless, I remain uncomfortable as these unpaid roles automatically shut the door for many graduates. Mario’s argument is that so long as you are determined to succeed in life, “then you will find a way, any way, to sustain your skills in a very demanding market”.

I’ve had issues with this simplistic approach before.  Determination and drive are necessary, yet no amount of determination can guarantee ‘a way’.  It’s a good start, but not enough to suggest unpaid internships are therefore acceptable.  Also, some unpaid roles require more than a couple of days a week, leaving no space to take on part-time paid work in the mean time.  Again, kudos to the 1994 Group for giving graduates enough flexibility through their scheme.

One way to bring all companies to satisfactory levels is to create a standardised system for internships.  Newell Hampson-Jones of the British Standards Institution (BSI) told me how this would prove a solid approach for both employers and workers:

“Rather than enforce new regulation, it’s my opinion that mediation and compromise could bring the most positive solution for employers, universities and graduates. In my view, we should invite the stakeholders together to create a standard which will help all parties. With this standard, employers can ensure they get the best graduates by offering the most challenging internships, universities and colleges can ensure their graduates are protected by requiring all companies working with them meet the standard and, most of all, graduates can be assured that they will be treated like a valuable employee and not have their enthusiasm taken advantage of with unfair financial conditions.

“I’ve always found it interesting that, during my previous experience of finding students internships, it has been the smaller, specialist organisations like 1994 Group who have provided the most challenging and useful internships, whilst the large glamorous brands have, by and large, just used the system for recruiting admin assistants and tea caddies; expecting students to be grateful just to have the brand on their CV. Hopefully a standard like this can discontinue this practice and give graduates an opportunity to hold those employers who take advantage of them to account.”

A big problem emerging is the increased popularity of unpaid roles.  Many of these roles are legally obliged to pay at least minimum wage, but challenges aren’t exactly forthcoming, hence the continued practice in offering structured roles without a wage.

Perhaps the idea of standardising internships would sort the muddle.  Done right, the process would even give graduates better scope to explain the benefits of their role for CV purposes.

There is currently no satisfactory answer.  I don’t expect my muddle to go away any time soon.

Would you take up an unpaid internship?  What do you think of the situation?

WikipediaWictionaryChambers (UK)Google imagesGoogle defineThe Free DictionaryJoin exampleWordNetGoogleUrban DictionaryAnswers.comrhymezone.comMerriam-Webster<>0
wvcidfjoguarm

The irrelevance of degree titles

Would you like a degree in Waste Management with Dance?  Sound like a strange combination?  Apparently not that strange.  The course is available at Northampton University.

The Telegraph has reported on how the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) wants to see no change to the way it allocates funds to universities and, therefore, would allow all sorts of bizarre degree courses to continue.

I say ‘bizarre’, but what’s missing from analysis of HEFCE’s stance and The Telegraph’s view is opinion from students taking these courses.

photo by scragz

Might Stomp explain a degree in Waste Management & Dance?

A degree in Third World Development with Pop Music (or Dance with Equine Studies, if you’d prefer) may be perfectly sensible to students taking on the work.  Or perhaps those students are being led down a false trail of hope.  Or they just want a degree and were happy to take whatever they could in current climate.

Until recently, Media Studies used to face the wrath of critics who were ready to dismiss it as a pointless “Mickey Mouse” degree.  However, that particular stigma has disappeared as the years have gone by.  There may still be difficulties securing employment for many graduates, but that’s the same for many apparently worthwhile degrees.  Employability isn’t guaranteed in any field.

As universities cover an ever growing number of bases it’s not so surprising to find joint degrees that cover Waste Management and Dance.  For instance, you may want to combine a vocational interest with an important hobby.  Or you may want to further your experience in ways that cannot be covered with two similar subjects.  I doubt there will be much subject crossover in lectures if you study both Waste Management and Dance.

Many camps are keen to see HE as a resource for churning out employable individuals with a vocational talent.  But that’s never been the overarching point of universities.  You would expect a certain level of development to assist in employability and vocational expertise, but it’s not the sole purpose of HE.

That said, many students take the university route because they see nothing better in their circumstances or because they think it’s the passport to future career success.  Neither may truly be the case, but with a combination of more traditional careers requiring a degree and a lack of proper careers guidance and information for young people, I’m not surprised the situation has arisen.

Ridiculing degrees that sound stupid doesn’t help or prove anything.  Taylor et al explain:

“Barry Matthews, chair of the Professional Association of Teachers, suggested that teenagers were being brainwashed into thinking that university was their only option. Matthews questioned the need for vocational degrees, asking whether bricklayers needed degrees or practical ability, whilst he was also scornful of new ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees in surfing or soap operas (Matthews cited in Curtis, 28 July 2004, p. 8). It is clear that there are now many new degrees in the portfolios of universities. Degrees have in some ways replaced the old apprenticeships and the practice of in-house training. For example, studies in journalism and in nursing are now successful degrees. We suspect that there will be those who believe that universities should not teach such subjects and should stick to teaching more traditional disciplines. Such a position fails to take into account the changing nature of the job market and the changing interests of students.” [Source]

I don’t have an answer to conclude with here.  In many ways, I don’t see much to answer.  Any degree with little value to the learner should be scrapped, whatever the discipline.  I’m not just talking about employability skills.  For whatever reason, it could be an English or a Biology course that fails in providing value.  At the same time, a single university offering Criminology and Pop Music Production may give students an amazing insight that no other could.  Degree title is irrelevant.

Students and graduates need to be part of the discussion as to what courses matter.  Their voices need to be heard and they need to be told the truth about why their course exists.

Without proper grounding, it’s pointless to worry about funding based on course titles.  And while nobody takes my proposal for a joint degree in Mosh Pit Sciences and Handbag Psychology seriously, I’ll stick with that view…

Making student places available and how to fund them

Channel 4 News last night provided a debate on the number of students going in to higher education and whether more places should be provided to meet demand.

Many young people are finding it difficult to find a place at uni, despite outstanding grades.  Rejections may come down solely to a flawed personal statement, or some minor issue that’s become a major block.  In all this uncertainty, it’s clear that the current system of allocating places at university is not supporting all those who would benefit from higher education.

photo by id-iom

photo by id-iom

Wendy Piatt, Director General of the Russell Group of universities, was first to speak on the Channel 4 debate.  She said huge increase in applications forces the question of whether the economy needs this many graduates and, if so, how can we afford them?  Due to world competition, Piatt argued that quality should be maintained.  Why short change students by spreading a limited pot of money too thinly?

Piatt went on to say that the current system does not support greater numbers of students.  Rather than have everybody pay the same amount of money, Piatt said there should be variation, especially as some people earn much more than others.

Strangely, this last point reminded me of an argument for graduate tax, which the Russell Group opposes.  They would rather see the cap on fees raised, if not abolished altogether.

It’s no surprise that the Russell Group want higher fees. They would be able to charge much more, yet maintain a full quota of students.  If any set of universities can stay strong based on their history and prestige, it is this set.

photo by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino

photo by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino

Professor Leslie Davies, vice chair of the Association of Colleges (AoC), said that HE currently caters for different purposes, needs and lifestyles. However, there needs to be further diversification to meet learner’s needs.  For instance, not all students want to move away from home for three years now.  A big shift is happening with better informed students looking more closely at career prospects.

Davies explained that employers are looking for a wide range of qualifications and skills from the workforce, with many companies recognising A-levels as a way in, as well as Diplomas and vocational routes.  A “one size fits all” approach is no longer helpful, so young people require better advice and guidance to suit their personal situation.

NUS President, Aaron Porter, warned of greater costs for the government unless more places were created for students.  The burden on jobseeker’s allowance with many people out of work could be huge, he argued, with the number of jobs drying up and fierce competition for apprenticeships.

In terms of debt, Porter disagreed with Piatt that degree costs should be variable based on course studied.  Some people choose to study law & economics and want to be a teacher.  Why should they be saddled with more debt if they go on to that totally different vocation?

Porter said that both individuals and the state will lose out if the state continues to set an artificial cap on places.  Students should be able to attend university if they wish and demonstrate the ability and grades.  Compared with OECD countries, the UK is slipping down the tables fast.  More people are entering higher education in other countries compared with here, which could severely limit the UK workforce.

photo by garlandcannon

photo by garlandcannon

How did the students see all this?  Also in the studio was a mix of young people either going to university this year or who had missed out on a place at uni despite good grades.

A selection of comments:

  • Students are a burden, but they are also the next workforce who need the right skills and training;
  • University may not be the only choice, but why stop people who DO want to attend and who have made the grade?
  • Looks like re-stratification. Fine if you can afford Cambridge, otherwise forced to do something else like get a diploma from a ‘random college’;
  • Graduate tax is a good idea. However, differential rates do pose a difficulty and it’s not easy to argue the best solution;
  • If you want to go to uni and have your mind set on it, you should have that right.  University is not the only way to kickstart a career.
  • Social perception needs changing before we can better engage public on benefits of HE.  Students are still seen as a lazy bunch who do precious little, but it’s a misconception;
  • Student debt is a growing issue for those looking at future options.  More potential students being turned off now there’s a greater chance of debt skyrocketing further.

The debate made clear that everyone agreed on certain points:

  1. University isn’t the only valid option available to further career prospects;
  2. Better advice and guidance is required to help people make better choices;
  3. Current numbers of students are not sustainable unless some form of change is introduced.

The third point is where much of the agreement breaks down.  The debate rests on where change should be made.  Should diversity naturally lower the number of people filing in to universities?  Should fees be raised and students/graduates shoulder the burden?  Should the artificial cap on places be lifted and funding be sourced from other savings?

I feel the first two points are crucial in assisting the change required in the third point.  Luckily, there is so much agreement on those two points.

Student numbers and funding provision are still the big issues for the government.  In the process, individual choices and the widening of opportunity falls deeper to the background.  What if the way forward was actually moving further away from view?  This is even more pertinent after Nick Clegg’s recent speech on social mobility:

“This is a complex and contested area of both research and policy. And action to improve social mobility will take many years to take effect. In policy terms, it is like turning the wheel on an oil tanker.

“Promoting social mobility is a long-term business. And it is precisely for that reason that it is vital to establish now, at the beginning of our time in office, that promoting social mobility is at the top of our social agenda.”

Social mobility involves more than money and affordability.  This is just the same for universities. Funding may be the problem, but that doesn’t mean it’s also the solution.

Employability & the Role of the University

Should universities teach students how to find a job? Are employment skills a necessary requirement for higher education to deliver today?

photo by micn2sugars

photo by micn2sugars

With so many new graduates each year, employers are spoilt for choice on who to give a job. If a company wants to recruit graduates, it’ll have no difficulty. If a company wants to recruit graduates with specific skills, the choice may be more difficult.

It’s like with A-levels. Universities find it increasingly difficult to work out which students to give offers to, because so many A-level students are receiving good grades. More unis are asking for at least one A* grade to help identify students of the highest calibre. But what happens when this grade fails to identify anything useful? And is this still a reasonable and effective method of finding the most able students?

There was a time when simply ‘being a graduate’ was enough to help you stand out from the crowd. Securing employment wasn’t as tough, because there were fewer graduates in the same position. Regardless of actual ability, having a degree was a notch above many.

Yet today, with so many graduates in the mix, employers look for more than a grade. Even a First at a prestigious university isn’t enough to grab whatever you desire.

Where does that leave you upon graduation? Should universities be responsible for ensuring a certain level of competence or employability before allowing you to graduate?

I’m not convinced it should be obligatory.  As a place of learning, university isn’t solely about business and career.  And it’s not possible to attain a particular level or type of ’employability’.

For instance, Boden & Nedeva highlight differences between Anglia Ruskin and Oxford:

“It is likely that local interpretations of notions of what makes graduates employable would be different for the University of Oxford and Anglia Ruskin University. The University of Oxford website does not contain an employability statement but, despite this, Oxford graduates are widely regarded as highly employable. Moreover, education at Oxford has not been changed in accordance with the employability agenda: broad-based knowledge and cultural capital are still the currencies that students accumulate.”
[Employing discourse: universities and graduate ’employability’]

Despite this, I believe students should be assured the following, whatever institution they attend:

  • Guaranteed availability of assistance and preparation for life after graduation if a student should request it;
  • Continued support from careers services, including a more detailed and personal service in some cases;
  • Clear information & explanation on improving employability and transition into work;
  • Before going in to HE, give students awareness that a degree is not an automatic passport to a job or career;
  • Give those pre-HE students guidance on the alternatives to university, along with general pros and cons to each.

I’m uncertain who would be responsible for supplying the resources for the last two points…universities, schools, government department, outsourced…?  But it is necessary.  Harriet Dunbar-Goddet at 1994 Group makes a simple, yet entirely valid point:

“Information is not enough, prospective students also need advice and guidance on how to make use of it.”

Any number of tools can be offered to students, but it counts for nothing if there is little awareness and an inability to make proper use of those tools.

In response to Harriet’s point, I said that it’s like being given all the separate components to build a car and then being expected to build it yourself with no fuss. You’d recognise some of the parts, but they would mean nothing in isolation.  There is similarity in this:

“As Tomlinson (2007) points out, students nowadays no longer anticipate a clear link between their merit in education and its reward in the labour market.”
[Less time to study, less well prepared for work, yet satisfied with higher education]

A selection of courses at some universities allow a year in relevant industry. This helps many graduates stand out both on their CV and in terms of actual experience, which is often lacking upon graduation.  Bullock et al, say:

“Our study confirms other findings that an extended work placement enhances the likelihood of a good degree and preferred employment. Although the sandwich model preferred in this university is not perfect, the perception shared by students, academics and employers is that benefits outweigh drawbacks.”
[‘Work placement experience: should I stay or should I go?‘]

Even if work placements and generous employability support are provided by universities, is it enough?  A recent paper by Hinchliffe & Jolly examines broader knowledge, identity and well-being as possible keys to greater employability. They look at a more holistic approach whereby students focus not solely on employability, but on the bigger picture:

“Our studies suggest that universities and government would be better employed promoting student employability indirectly through the promotion of graduate identity and well-being (through the provision of opportunities for functioning) rather than directly through employability skills.”
[Graduate identity and employability]

Given the issues discussed above, it’s no wonder that a degree doesn’t automatically result in magical employment.

Boden & Nedeva are concerned that matters go beyond employability. Is higher education in danger of giving too narrow a focus to learning when it should be giving a wider perspective?

“Universities should be the critical friends to civil society, enlightening, informing and engaging, as part of their service. The growth within universities of pedagogical approaches based around the ‘delivery’ of ‘teaching materials’ in a narrow set of ‘skills and competencies’ bodes ill for the execution of this wider public intellectual role. This, we argue, is perhaps the most alarming of implications.” [Source]

And the take home point?

When you identify any goal, career or otherwise, strike out using your own initiative and find who and what can help you around your own actions.

Whatever your university has to offer, take responsibility for your future. Look beyond the grades and beyond the reputation of the institution.  Look to yourself and what you have to offer.  It’s often a lot more that you think.