Unpaid Internships Lead To Lower-Paying Jobs, Study Finds (theguardian.com)

The Guardian reports: Almost every graduate taking an unpaid internship can expect to be worse off three years later than if they had gone straight into work. That is the shock finding of the first survey of its kind of the career trajectories of tens of thousands of students over a six-year period. The study, conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex, reveals that, three-and-a-half years after graduating, former interns face a salary penalty of approximately £3,500, compared with those who went straight into paid work, and £1,500 compared with those who went into further study... The study also found that those who took internships were less likely to go on to professional or managerial roles or be satisfied with their career compared with those who had gone straight into work.
Slashdot reader BarbaraHudson warns unpaid internships are also "a possible indicator of a large oversupply of workers to jobs available and downward pressure on pay." Anyone else want to share thoughts about the current job market for professionals -- or your own horror stories about your first job after college?

Comments

"shock finding"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... I can't take any more of this constant bullshit. I wish all these fucking idiots would just start telling the truth about things and stop bullshitting.

Re:"shock finding"?

[BarbaraHudson]

People are being told that an unpaid internship will improve your chances on the job market, and they obviously believe it or they wouldn't do them. And yet, 3 years later they're still behind in earnings, and they're less likely to be working in their field of choice. Probably would have been better off taking a job in something else just to pay the bills while looking for an opening.

Students are being ripped off twice - once by the university, which charges for the time they're working for free, and the second time by the business they're working for free at. So you're not working for free - you're paying to work. At least slaves got fed on their master's dime.

Employers aren't allowed to use unpaid interns to do the jobs of regular employees, so the internship doesn't even give you experience actually doing the job - and employers know this.

You also don't get the same protections as regular employees. For example, don't get hurt on the job - since your wage is $0.00, workmen's compensation will be a percentage of $0.00, which is $0.00. Your only recourse would be a civil suit, and you can expect both the school and the company to say the other party is responsible for any loss.

The only internships worth anything in the eyes of future employers are paid internships. That's also how you should evaluate them - same as any other job. If you want to work for free, do it for a charity. Better yet, arrange for your internship to be at a charity - at least this way you haven't devalued yourself by working for free at a for-profit business.

Re:"shock finding"?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I would assume that having an unpaid internship would improve your chances of landing a job; a little seasoning, a little experience is a great thing! Of course, it will probably also depress your market value simply because you've already proven you are willing to work for free... So the question becomes working for free - and depressing future earnings potential, but at least working in your chosen industry OR working in a different industry and running the risk of being excluded because you are already "out of the mainstream" with your talents and skills.

Re:"shock finding"?

[mikael]

In the UK, they were charging interns £1000/month to get "work experience" for six months.

Re:"shock finding"?

[BarbaraHudson]

The problem with that, and it's pointed out in the article, is that people who take unpaid internships end up not just with lower future earnings, but also are more likely to end up in a field other than their chosen one.

A little experience at ANY paid job is probably better than unpaid experience. Unlike the unpaid interns, who aren't allowed to replace regular workers (and as a result don't gain real experience anyway), the person who works at a paid job outside the field has probably had more responsibility on the job, and that, combined with your transcripts, should count for more than a "not-really-relevant-experience" internship.

Employers know the whole unpaid internship thing is a scam. They take them because, what the hell, maybe they'll come across someone halfway-decent, and if they don't it hasn't cost them anything and they have someone to order around doing menial jobs for free. After all, even if it were allowed, just how much responsibility would you hand over to an unpaid intern? They have far less skin in the game compared to someone working for $$$. You don't give them a good recommendation, there's always someone else looking for free labour.

Re:"shock finding"?

[hord]

That's how it is sold. A real internship is called an apprenticeship, is paid, and directly leads to a career path. Internships are just social avenues for networking and the people that succeed take full advantage of that, not the "experience" gained.

Re: "shock finding"?

[KGIII]

I realize that I'm a horrible person because my first though was, 'That's brilliant!'

Re:"shock finding"?

[ShanghaiBill]

Correlation is not causation. The people accepting unpaid internships are those at the bottom, not very bright, not very hard working, and with no other easy alternative. These people would likely end up in low paying jobs no matter what. TFA describes a survey, not a controlled study, so there is no actual evidence that the unpaid internship caused the poor outcomes.

Oh, one other thing: TFA is about the UK, but in the USA unpaid internships are generally illegal. If an intern is doing any actual work, the employer is required to pay at least the legal minimum wage. If you did an unpaid internship in the past few years, it is very likely you can demand back pay by threatening to report your employer to the DOL.

Re:"shock finding"?

[GuB-42]

An unpaid internship is not necessarily exploitation.
If the company actually takes time teaching you how to work, it can cost them more than any output you produce. And as an intern, you are not expected to be as productive as an experienced worker, and someone is likely to come after you, fixing your mistakes. It results in you taking valuable time from full-payed employees while not offering much in return. The reason these company take interns at all is that by the end of the internship, you may turn out to be a great potential hire.
At least it is the idea behind internships. However some companies abuse the system to get slave labor. And honest companies are more likely to pay interns anyways.

Re: "shock finding"?

[mikael]

Mainly it was for international students from India and China wanting to work for defence industry companies.

Re:"shock finding"?

[doctorvo]

Students are being ripped off twice - once by the university, which charges for the time they're working for free, and the second time by the business they're working for free at.

Well, and those students made two mistakes: they chose to work for free for the university, and then they chose to work for free in an internship.

So you're not working for free - you're paying to work. At least slaves got fed on their master's dime.

Your comparison is not just wrong, it's offensive. Slaves were compelled by the force of law to work for their master; being a student or taking an unpaid internship is a choice a legally competent adult makes for their own life. If that choice doesn't work out, the legally competent adult has only themselves to blame.

Re:"shock finding"?

[BarbaraHudson]

Department of Labor Rules to determine if an intern needs to be paid.

Re:"shock finding"?

[BarbaraHudson]

Interns have to be paid if the internship is seen as a possible avenue to employment at the company, Dept. of Labor

Job Entitlement

The internship should be of a fixed duration, established prior to the outset of the internship. Further, unpaid internships generally should not be used by the employer as a trial period for individuals seeking employment at the conclusion of the internship period. If an intern is placed with the employer for a trial period with the expectation that he or she will then be hired on a permanent basis, that individual generally would be considered an employee under the FLSA.

Re:"shock finding"?

[doctorvo]

The problem with that, and it's pointed out in the article, is that people who take unpaid internships end up not just with lower future earnings, but also are more likely to end up in a field other than their chosen one.

This may come as a shock to you, but people are not guaranteed to be able to work in their chosen field, let alone command a competitive salary.

The fact that people face future lower earnings, are forced to take unpaid internships, or are forced to leave a field has one simple, common cause: they aren't as good at their chosen field as the people they are competing against. It's something many adults come to grips with sooner or later. Welcome to the real world.

Re:"shock finding"?

[cheesybagel]

I'll give you some clues here: ALL employers ask for your previous work history and ask you for your previous salary to determine how much they can afford paying/not paying you. If you have a previous work history where salary earned is zero the result is?
The other factor is, people who can afford to spent more time in school probably have a family business or easy turbo into a managerial role. The fact they did not need to do an internship before getting a job is more of a consequence than a cause. People typically do not get managerial roles because they have a degree but because they have connections. The degree is more of a formality than the main requirement.

Re:"shock finding"?

[MangoCats]

This seems more like self fulfilling research, like:

There are fewer atheists in church congregations than down at the local pub.

There are fewer tone deaf people in musical careers than working at the train yards.

People coming off of trans-Atlantic flights travel by air more often than people coming off of a city bus.

and, for the win:

People who take jobs that pay nothing also accept lower paying jobs later on in their career.

Put all those hypotheses in your pipe and smoke 'em, good odds you'll get a confirmation every time.

Re:"shock finding"?

[TheRaven64]

That doesn't prevent the normal way of recruiting via internships. The internship is a fixed-duration placement over a summer break and you're offered a job at the completion of your degree. The offer won't come for a few months after the end of the internship and will be contingent on the degree result.

Re:"shock finding"?

[butchersong]

We have a wave of interns every year. Did the same when I worked for a software division at HP but we pay them. Internships to me equal apprenticeships and I can't see how you would break into certain fields without them. Maybe unpaid internships have way less cache on a resume and this is hurting them but.. most places I've worked they contribute, earn at least a decent pay and at the end of the internship we offer many positions.

Re:"shock finding"?

[bluefoxlucid]

You haven't proven you're willing to work for free; you've only taken the first step in nurturing your conflict-avoiding personality and coddling your insecurities. What if you get that first job and you're not stellar, so they fire you in a week for not knowing wtf you're doing? What if you don't know wtf you're doing?!

What if you keep pressing for better pay, and get passed up at interviews?

Surely the offer must be reasonable. Why risk putting an idiotic number into that "desired salary" box? Just write "Negotiable" and let them set the tone.

Re:"shock finding"?

[BarbaraHudson]

Sure, but as the article points out, you have a fair chance that you won't end up in your chosen field anyway, and if you do, it will be for lower pay. It may be a blessing to keep what you like as a hobby, so you never get fed up with the attendant bullshit (software is a great example of this).

Re: "shock finding"?

[mikael]

In the UK sense on internship, it is after an international student graduates but before they return home or take up an offer.

Re: "shock finding"?

[TheRaven64]

Speaking as someone who teaches at a UK university: that's pretty rare in the sciences. Most of my students will do an internship in between their first and second or second and third (or both) years, but most internship programmes are only open to people who are returning to study the following year (which is unfortunate for masters students). At the end of the degree, they are typically offered jobs (for our students, typically multiple offers per student, but we're atypical in that regard).

US parent here

[rsilvergun]

Not sure about the UK, but in the States you use unpaid internships to help get into your 300 level courses. After 30 years of budget cuts schools don't have enough space for all the applicants in most majors (especially medical, and not just full medical doctor, think Nursing, pharmacist, physical therapist, etc, etc). Even a perfect GPA won't guarantee you a spot anymore. So you volunteer, do extracurricular stuff and finally internships. My kid got lucky and got what's more or less a paid one. But it's like winning the lottery what with the number of applicants.

Re:US parent here

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume by 300 level you mean upper classmen junior level at university. I suppose that depends on your kid. If they enrolled as a freshman they don't need to do internships assuming they actually passed their 100/200 level courses to go on. Most 300 level courses in engineering for example have prerequisites that you pass the previous 200 level courses with a C or better.

If they attended a junior college first, then yes I can see that it's competitive to get enrolled unless you have excellent grades and something meaningful to put on your application.

In Texas although university education is still funded unlike in some states because of the Permanent University Fund (oil money) the competition to get enrolled is fierce especially to UT or A&M. It's not a question of money there are just more kids trying to get in - many HS stopped vocational training. It used to be if you were top 10% of high school class you were basically guaranteed enrollment 30 years ago. Not so much today so many kids start in lower tier schools first. Internships would certainly help there.

Re:US parent here

[ranton]

in the States you use unpaid internships to help get into your 300 level courses

This story is studying graduates who take unpaid internships, not students who take unpaid internships. Those are very different things. This study is looking at people who couldn't find work after they graduated and had to settle for unpaid internships, and then seems surprised these students make less money down the line.

For this study to have any relevance, they would have to look at graduates who had an offer for a paid position but chose to take an unpaid internship instead. Then look at their earnings 10 years later as compared to those who took the paid gig (after adjusting for the quality of the original paid job offer). I would still expect the ones who took the paid position to win out, but at least then you would have something interesting to discover.

Re:US parent here

[Anonymous Coward]

No the ZX Spectrum.

I mean, who would employ someone using a computer that is 3 decades old.

Re:US parent here

[Njorthbiatr]

This doesn't make sense. You pay to take those courses; it isn't a free lottery. If there is so much demand they would simply hire more teachers or raise the cost of the class. Determining who can pay for the class based on merit is so ridiculous I can't even start.

Re:US parent here

[LynnwoodRooster]

Budget cuts for universities... For the last 20 years, tuition at universities has greatly outstripped the inflation rate. Assuming costs of running the university don't grow more than 1.4 times inflation, then there should be plenty of money to serve students. Of course, the growth in the cost of a college degree has doubled that of inflation, so...

Re:US parent here

[thegarbz]

Even a perfect GPA won't guarantee you a spot anymore.

If this is the case there's something broken with the University entrance process or the GPA grading process.

Re:US parent here

[Kierthos]

Well, colleges have to pay for those massive stadiums and sportsball coaches somehow, don't they?

Yes, yes, I realize not all colleges do that. But when Texas A&M spends $450 million to renovate their stadium, the University of Oklahoma spends $370 million to do the same, and so one, and so on....

Re:US parent here

[Rockoon]

Are you going to provide evidence that those universities don't pull in more than that on their sports programs?

yeah... I thought not... you just want to wave your hands pointing at something you think is automatically evil...

Universities arent stupid. They are sometimes disillusioned, but not stupid. If they are building a half-billion dollar stadium, its because they expect it to pay off, which is something that is the exact opposite of what you so desperately want to imply with your empty worthless virtue-signaling dream.

Texas A&M makes a fucking bucketload of cash every year on its sports program. The number I am looking at is $92 million/year. Their sports program pays off their half-billion dollar sports stadium in almost exactly 5 years. You wont find that sort of financial responsibility anywhere else on a university campus, but here your dumb fucking ass is trying to claim that its irresponsible.

Re:US parent here

[Woldscum]

3 LSU sports pays for all school sports teams and facility + puts millions into the general fund.

http://www.theadvocate.com/bat...

NCCA
http://sports.usatoday.com/nca...

Re:US parent here

[LynnwoodRooster]

Umm, that's his point - private funds DID cover it. Ticket sales - private sales - for A&M football covered the costs in just 5 years - and will continue to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the bottom line of the university for decades to come.

Re:US parent here

[PPalmgren]

Not only that, there's very little legal wiggle room around "unpaid internships" in the US. If you're doing any real, actual work, you have to be paid. It's why in all the snoody movies about working for a publisher or fashion or writing or producing the "intern" only ever gets coffee - that's all they're allowed to do, pretty much get coffee or lunch and observe the industry. Most unpaid internships are smaller employers trying to scam people and save money by skirting the labor laws.

Re:US parent here

[strikethree]

After 30 years of budget cuts schools don't have enough...

This REALLY caught my eye.

Tuition rates are climbing much faster than inflation. We have an astoundingly huge amount of student loans at risk of default...

What exactly is going on here? More money is being demanded for fewer services? What is the money being used for?

Alternatively ....

[chuckugly]

Alternatively .... it could be the ones who couldn't land paying gigs right away suck more than the ones who did go straight to work.

Re:Alternatively ....

[BarbaraHudson]

Alternatively .... it could be the ones who couldn't land paying gigs right away suck more than the ones who did go straight to work.

This is definitely something students should consider. If they can't land a paid internship, either there's an over-supply of interns in that field, or they're targeting the wrong field. Either way, time to set themselves a more realistic target/goal.

Re:Alternatively ....

[chuckugly]

Nicely done alternative to my alternative. I agree, more than one thing can be true at once here. The article's apparent conclusion doesn't (to me) seem to be the most plausible on its face.

Re:Alternatively ....

[jordanjay29]

Nice round of victim shaming from the boomers, as expected. Clearly the fault must all lie with the applicant, if they were turned down from a job, there must be something wrong with them, right? Nevermind that hiring for companies has become more stringent, automatic resume scanning can remove legitimate candidates from the process, and some companies go months without filling a role due to changes at the top creating uncertainty about the job description and who to look for.

The simple fact is, the job market is saturated with candidates in many fields, and getting started these days is an uphill climb. Companies want candidates with specific skills that can be exclusive to their field, or candidates with a few years of experience for an entry level job, or soft skills that they don't know how to interview for and can't be conveyed properly on a resume. It's not hard to wonder why people entering the job market may take an unpaid internship to earn experience that they otherwise wouldn't have to land their first paying gig. That a company takes advantage of their lack of a salary is a douchebag move on their part, and usually has nothing to do with the candidate for the role at all.

Re:Alternatively ....

[chuckugly]

All I hear is a bunch of crying. Toughen up buttercup, life's always been hard.

Re:Alternatively ....

[chuckugly]

Oh, also - not a boomer. But nice try.

Re:Alternatively ....

[jordanjay29]

Then that's the lesson you should have taught the Millenials in their childhood. Instead, the boomers encouraged (read: demanded) their children get participation trophies, were told they can do anything they want to, to pursue their dreams, etc. You made your bed.

Re:Alternatively ....

[chuckugly]

It's not my job to train other children other than my own. Also, not a boomer.

Invisible Hand.

[0100010001010011]

Shouldn't unpaid internships in a field be an indication of the saturation of the job market in addition to job prospects after graduation? We have highschool dropouts making $20+/hr where I live and companies still have a shortage of good workers. You can make a very good living working in those fields.

Even if you just use it as a stepping stone to another career. These people made the personal decision to go into a field that was saturated with people wanting to be in it and unpaid internships are a very easy filter.

Hell if you can pass a drug test and show up on time you can make pretty good money driving trucks right now. I wouldn't bank on that long term but it should be more than enough money to save some, take night courses at a community college and leverage it into another career.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[TheRaven64]

Exactly. In a high-demand field, a paid internship is a cheap way of hiring: you get to spend three months finding out if your prospective employee is competent and they get to spend three months deciding if they want to work for you (and, if they are competent, you get to spend three months persuading them that they do). In comparison with pretty much any other hiring mechanism, a paid internship is very cheap, in a field where there's a skills shortage. If companies in a field can easily hire competent people without this, then that's a good indication that there's a glut of talent.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[aaarrrgggh]

Yup, no drugs, no criminal record and there are a lot of jobs out there at limited skill levels like a welder at a Navy shipyard. If you have to go unpaid, you really need to re-think your field.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[Oligonicella]

at limited skill levels like a welder at a Navy shipyard

You do not know what you're talking about.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[aaarrrgggh]

I have tried to weld and am useless; I agree that the term "limited skill" would be better stated as "limited education." My meaning of "skill" was "intellectual."

However, I do know very well what I am talking about.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[ColdWetDog]

A high end welder has motor skills as developed as a surgeon or a pilot. While the intellectual chops for that aren't quite as demanding, they're not all that far behind. The *really* good welders here in rural Alaska, the ones that do pipeline or marine construction have spent nearly as much time learning their trade as a surgeon or pilot and make nearly as much money.

A better analogy might be the various stages of electricians. At the low end you don't need to know much, don't need much of an education or job experience and don't make a great deal of money. The master electricians who are responsible for high voltage gear again spend decades learning this stuff and are compensated accordingly.

However, the US doesn't need huge volumes of either trade (unfortunately) so it is a difficult choice for say, a high school kid, to decide where to go unless you have a strong interest in the field.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[dgatwood]

And yet, a dozen robots can do the welds more quickly, more accurately, and without collecting a salary. I think that was the point. Those are dead-end careers in the short-to-medium term. Nobody in his/her right mind should be trying to achieve great skills in that area, because by the time you reach that level, the skill won't be needed anymore.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[Rockoon]

I know a guy that did welding on submarines in Connecticut.

He was trained right out of high school, on the job, and eventually became the trainer of new welders at Electric Boat.

So its pretty clear to me that some people here do not know what they are talking about. For instance someone that might move the goalpost from "welder in a shipyard" to "high end welder"

....oh... thats you.... you did that... you moved the goalpost... you didnt want to talk about what is... you want to talk about a very special scenario that you have in your head that you think its accurate,

A minimum $20/hour is entry level for welders or you are entering the career wrong.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[Woldscum]

Robots work in large factories. Not in the field repairing broken equipment or building one-offs. It is just not the act of welding and following a set of engineered drawings. It is applying experience to the situation and "Just making it work". Time is money and the welder/fabricator is the defacto engineer. Clearly you have never worked a day in your life.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[Dutch Gun]

Clearly you have never worked a day in your life.

Well, not outside an office anyhow. I see this from slashdotters all the time. They have no practical experience outside an office, and so *vastly* overestimate the capabilities of robots and automation, largely because they don't understand industrial or light industrial work sites. There are a LOT of types of work where automation can only go so far, or in bits and pieces, and requires the dexterity and flexibility of human workers to put these products together.

My father ran a light manufacturing operation for many years, and most of his products were one-offs. His business used a lot of high-tech tools, but skilled people were still required to put it all together - certified welders included. Until a robotic welder has both the dexterity of a human AND the intellectual capacity to cope with changing projects and requirements, we're still going to need humans to do the job.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[cheesybagel]

Robot welding machines typically have all their movements manually programmed by someone. So you will typically need a professional welder to program one and then it just replicates those movements.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[TheRaven64]

Which works well for repeated tasks, such as a production line. It's much harder for the one-off repairs that you often need the highest skill for. That said, tele-operation can reduce the motor skills requirements quite significantly by simply making the virtual target a lot bigger. If one cm of movement by the operator corresponds to 1mm of movement by the robot, you can be pretty clumsy and still do very precise work.

Re:Invisible Hand.

[dgatwood]

Robots work in large factories. Not in the field repairing broken equipment or building one-offs.

Nope. And even if you were correct, that's still at best a temporary situation.

Besides, most of the big work involves things like pipeline construction or marine construction. Marine construction is already becoming automated, and pipeline construction is a prime candidate for automation, too, because it involves mostly welding the same joint on a large number of pipe segments over and over again. Even if the one-off jobs never become automated, it will still get harder and harder to make a living because fewer and fewer people will be needed.

Moreover, if we start from the assumption that we'll never get to the point where repair welding is automated, then this will still mean that many fewer welders will be needed in the future, so fewer and fewer people will go into that field. And because they'll all be doing less work, they'll have less practice, and the quality will suffer. At some point, the number of people who are still good enough to do hard repairs will drop below the amount of work to be done, resulting in skyrocketing costs, until at some point it will become so profitable to automate the work that the initial assumption becomes implausible.

It's almost as if labor has value

[FunkSoulBrother]

..and you shouldn't squander it away by demonstrating that you're willing to provide it for free.

See also:

-Programming contests where the hosting corp gives $100K as a Grand Prize but retains rights to all of the contestants code (and doesn't even pay any FICA tax)

-The NCAA making billions off of 'student-athletes' with lucrative television contracts

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[drinkypoo]

..and you shouldn't squander it away by demonstrating that you're willing to provide it for free.

The deeper issue is that companies should not be permitted to "hire" unpaid interns, period, so long as being broke is effectively a crime. That's taking work away from people who need to get paid to just go on existing. It is essentially a kind of slavery (indenturement anyway) and the expectation that they will be able to get unpaid interns only leads companies to hire inadequate numbers of employees. If a business can't function without paying people for their time, then it doesn't deserve a business license.

If we institute a functional MGI then businesses should be free to collect unpaid interns like pokemon cards, but until then, that should be illegal.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[doctorvo]

The deeper issue is that companies should not be permitted to "hire" unpaid interns [...] If a business can't function without paying people for their time, then it doesn't deserve a business license.

The business can function just fine without unpaid interns. Unpaid internships are simply a way to expand the recruiting pool to candidates that would otherwise be too risky. That is, if you force businesses to pay interns, say, $15/h, they only hire people who they know are worth $15/h.

If we institute a functional MGI then businesses should be free to collect unpaid interns like pokemon cards, but until then, that should be illegal.

In different words, MGI is a crony capitalist system by which tax payers pay for workers so that companies can get them for free. Thanks for at least admitting that much.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[avandesande]

To me taking an unpaid internship after graduating indicates the field you studied has very poor job prospects. I think the article has the whole causation thing bass-ackwards.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[TheRaven64]

That is, if you force businesses to pay interns, say, $15/h, they only hire people who they know are worth $15/h.

No, they only hire interns if the cost of paying them $15/h and having them be useless is more than the cost of recruiting via other mechanisms. Most of the companies that I work with consider (paid) interns their cheapest recruiting tool. They pay them a few thousand pounds for a three-month period and in that time they get to evaluate how well the person works with a team, what their skills are, whether they are a good fit for the company, and to persuade them that the company is a great place to work. Even better, at the end of the three months, there's no obligation to offer them a job and you can get rid of them with no repercussions if they're not competent. In contrast, pretty much any other mechanism for hiring is very expensive, particularly when you factor in the costs of hiring a bad employee.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[doctorvo]

No, they only hire interns if the cost of paying them $15/h and having them be useless is more than the cost of recruiting via other mechanisms.

That's what "what they are worth" means: expected utility.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[drinkypoo]

In different words, MGI is a crony capitalist system by which tax payers pay for workers so that companies can get them for free.

It's better than the crony capitalist system we have now, in which workers are forced to do senseless make-work with real negative ecological ramifications because if you don't work you starve. This system is destroying the biosphere upon which we all depend for life.

The so-called "job creators" are sitting on all the money, which prevents anyone from using that money to pay employees. If they won't spend it of their own accord, it's going to have to be taken away from them, or the system will crash and it will serve no one. This is really not that complicated. It actually doesn't matter how you feel about it morally. You only have to decide whether you want to preserve the system or not. Keep in mind that throwing it away and replacing it with something completely new will involve so much upheaval that it's probably not actually possible to do in a controlled fashion.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[doctorvo]

The so-called "job creators" are sitting on all the money, which prevents anyone from using that money to pay employees.

Almost all "money" that people "sit on" is in the form of investments. Investments are exactly the mechanism by which jobs get created and employees get paid.

If they won't spend it of their own accord, it's going to have to be taken away from them, or the system will crash and it will serve no one.

A century of experience with communism, fascism, and socialism (what you advocate) shows that such an approach causes economic collapse, totalitarian rule, and massive violence. Communists and socialist states killed about 100 million people in the last century, and you can add the victims of fascism on top of that.

This is really not that complicated.

You're right: it isn't complicated: you're profoundly ignorant and evil.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[drinkypoo]

Almost all "money" that people "sit on" is in the form of investments.

Who told you that? They lied to you. Why are you repeating it? You clearly didn't check to see if it was true. In fact, governments worldwide are experiencing problems due to cash hoarding.

You're right: it isn't complicated: you're profoundly ignorant and evil.

You're the one who wants people to starve and die, and you seem to think that won't affect you in any way. You're the only one in this conversation who is ignorant or evil.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[doctorvo]

Who told you that? They lied to you. You clearly didn't check to see if it was true.

You can check for yourself: the total value of publicly traded US corporations is about $25T, while cash holding by those corporations are $2T. And private investments are even more than that.

In fact, governments worldwide are experiencing problems due to cash hoarding.

"Hoarding eggs" causes prices for eggs to rise; "hoarding cash" causes "prices for cash to rise", which is the same as everything else getting cheaper. How is that a bad thing?

What governments actually mean when they say that is that corporations don't make enough capital investments; as a result, the economy doesn't grow as fast as it should. That's true. But the reason companies don't make capital investments is that they don't expect much return due to the current political climate. If you take their cash and redistribute it, you make that problem worse. And in the process, you'll cause a stock market crash and you cause people to lose their retirement investments.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[doctorvo]

You're the one who wants people to starve and die, and you seem to think that won't affect you in any way. You're the only one in this conversation who is ignorant or evil.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you don't actually want people to starve and die, but the policies you advocate have that effect. Socialism and communism killed about 100 million people in the 20th Century, many of them from famine.

According to your resume, you haven't worked in 10 years, but you do live in your cheap home in Northern California and buy an Audi 32V V8. What's up with that? Did you just drop out? Are you a pot grower? Are you disabled? Who knows. What I can tell you is what would happen under socialism/communism, because I have experienced it: you'd be assigned a bedroom in some decrepit apartment in some industrial area with unbreathable air and you'd be forced to work in some factory; if you are unable to work, you'll be institutionalized and "treated" until you do. That's real socialism/communism for you.

And maybe you can explain how you justify that other people pay more taxes while you yourself seem to be nothing productive for your fellow men.

Finally, you might also try to reflect on what would happen if lots of other people made the same choices you did. How would your infrastructure get paid for? Who would build it? And who would create the "Oneirochronon" that you named your site after?

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[drinkypoo]

Socialism and communism killed about 100 million people in the 20th Century, many of them from famine.

Except that only socialism is being used, not communism, which has never actually been tried. It's always been a bullshit ruse; the people who claimed to be instituting it have never actually lived it themselves. Maybe it can never actually be tried in practice, but stop calling it communism. It never was. It was forced communism for the lower classes, while the upper classes continued to behave like any capitalist. And meanwhile, socialism is working well in a number of countries today.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[doctorvo]

It was forced communism for the lower classes, while the upper classes continued to behave like any capitalist.

You're right: capitalist societies are full of sociopaths and power hungry pricks at the top. What socialists/communists have never managed to explain is how they are going to prevent sociopaths and power hungry pricks from gaining power in those societies. And in a socialist/communist society, you have no way of escaping from those in power: their control over your life is total. You can't drop out, you can't choose not to work, frugality and hard work are no escape.

The US Constitution has the best answer to this problem anybody has every found: limited government limits the power those sociopaths have over you, and capitalism and free markets give you the possibility of succeeding without being a sociopath yourself, simply by trading with other people stuff that's useful.

And meanwhile, socialism is working well in a number of countries today.

Have you lived in any of them? Why aren't you living there now? I have, and let me tell you: no matter what your place is in the American pecking order, no matter how much you may think your life sucks in the US, you'd be worse off in any of those countries. Per capita social welfare expenditures by the US are among the highest in the world, benefits for the poor are among the best in the world, and taxes for lower income earners are much lower than in most other countries.

Furthermore, those supposedly "socialist" countries really are just a bloated social welfare state on top of an otherwise capitalist society, and that bloated social welfare state isn't even sustainable: it's financed by the capitalist economic booms of the past. That's why many such nations have reverted to conservative governments again.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[drinkypoo]

And maybe you can explain how you justify that other people pay more taxes while you yourself seem to be nothing productive for your fellow men.

On what basis? I've just been odd jobbing. I haven't wanted to subject myself to office life. There's no reason to imagine that someone isn't adding value to society simply because they're not putting more big names on their resume. I'm thinking about moving to someplace with real internet access so I can get a real job again, though. I don't mind the work, just the commuting and the office.

Finally, you might also try to reflect on what would happen if lots of other people made the same choices you did. How would your infrastructure get paid for? Who would build it? And who would create the "Oneirochronon" that you named your site after?

This reminds me of the debate about advertising. In the early days of the web, before advertising, people simply gave away content. I was one of those people. And I still give away content, I write howtos and the like. There are no ads on my site. You imagine that people must go to an office and work a job for a corporation in order to produce value for society. I tell you that all of that bullshit is actually inefficiency.

Re:It's almost as if labor has value

[doctorvo]

You imagine that people must go to an office and work a job for a corporation in order to produce value for society. I tell you that all of that bullshit is actually inefficiency.

So let's summarize. You made a choice to work "odd jobs" in Lake County and live in a cheap, out of the way place; you believe that this is an efficient and useful way for you to contribute to society. Those are free market choices, choices that don't exist under socialism. In a socialist society, you would be required to work as an IT drone because that's what the state trained you for, and whether you consider your working conditions to be "inefficient" is irrelevant.

Now you may say "but under communism I would have that choice". And in a sense, that's exactly what you got. True communism assumes a post-scarcity society, and as far as basic necessities go, food, housing, transportation, most people in the US effectively live in a post-scarcity society: you can buy your cheap trailer in the middle of nowhere, live cheaply, and work very little.

But there is another, parallel society in the US, that of upscale urban centers, palatial homes, supercomputers in your pocket, massive organizations that rival the pyramid builders, and medical technologies that can make you live for a century; that society is full of scarcity. Contributions to that society need to be more than "odd jobs", they require long term dedication, superior skills, and massive efforts and investments, and they are rewarded accordingly.

It's your choice which society you want to be part of. But whichever choice you make, you need to live with the consequences. And the fact that you have that choice in the first place is a consequence of the fact that the US is based on free markets and individual liberties.

When History Works Against You

[AlanObject]

I have never been an intern but I have worked at lower-paying jobs during a period where I was in transition and didn't expect to be there long. Just to keep from depleting savings during that time.

The problem is that in a job interview where they review your employment history they will consider your past pay to determine what to offer you. (We aren't going to bump you up 200%). They will actually pay more to another candidate with less skills but higher past earnings for the exact same position. It isn't necessarily logical but I always suspected I would have been better being unemployed than low-pay employed..

So I can imagine the same thing happens to unpaid interns.

Re:When History Works Against You

[aaarrrgggh]

This comes down to negotiating tactics. I am guilty of doing it to new hires, but my primary reason to ask about salary history is to filter out the top end. I might feel like I have more negotiating power with someone who is underpaid at their current position, but I also think I am offering something in terms of training that a higher salary would not include.

Re:When History Works Against You

[mrbester]

"they review your employment history they will consider your past pay to determine what to offer you"

The trouble with that is it is no business of theirs what you were paid at a previous position. They are offering a position that pays X. That's what you are interviewing for.

They can only surmise what you were paid once they get forms like a P-45 from you and they can only get that upon confirmation of employment and a signed contract.

Re:When History Works Against You

[johanw]

And how do you check if the candidate isn't exaggerating his past earnings? You want access to his bank account or what?

Re:When History Works Against You

[Rockoon]

They are offering a position that pays X. That's what you are interviewing for.

Thats where you are wrong. They are not offering a position that pays a particular amount. Thats not how it works unless its McDonalds.

Re:When History Works Against You

[cheesybagel]

Employers know how to use Glassdoor too you know. Plus sometimes there are informal contacts and they can find it out this way.

Since they hire people more often than you seek jobs it means they know the market values better. It doesn't mean they usually do a check or that they can do it but they might be willing to investigate if something looks suspicious.

Re:When History Works Against You

[cheesybagel]

They are offering a position that pays X. That's what you are interviewing for.

I have new word for you to learn my friend. Haggling.

What about unpaid internships *during* school?

[mykepredko]

A local college has offered my company students who must complete an internship to get their degrees (in software engineering). There is no requirement for payment as this is a requirement to graduate and we were told by the college the best the students could hope for was a letter of recommendation. We are unusual in that we are paying the students and are working through a contract with the college to take on paid interns - this is in line with our B-Corp certification and general company philosophy.

So, for the majority of students from this college (and others), who have unpaid internships in order to get the piece of paper saying that they graduated from the program, what does this mean for their future salary prospects?

Re:What about unpaid internships *during* school?

[cheesybagel]

You can just not put it in your resume you know.

Correlation is not causation

[OldMugwump]

News flash: Students who can't get paid internships often later can't get the best-paying jobs, either. Correlation is not causation.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[BarbaraHudson]

Except that kids whose parents have higher incomes get a disproportionate percentage of the paid internships. Has nothing to do with ability, everything to do with connections. It's actually right there in the article.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[OldMugwump]

I didn't comment on the cause. I just pointed out that a correlation doesn't show that "Unpaid Internships Lead To Lower-Paying Jobs". The cause could be connections, as you say. Or less-qualified students. Or many other things.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Bite The Pillow]

We had a paid intern, who accepted a job after graduating. And shows no sign of trying to advance. Could get a 10k raise by going anywhere, and has the skills.

I suspect taking an unpaid internship attracts a certain type of person who is happy with the job and not concerned about the pay. I know I had to leave the company (or have a legit offer) to get my pay where it should be, but lots of people don't do that unless their hand is forced.

And that is likely what this survey found, not the conclusion stated by the authors. In fact, I never read the Con lusion or Findings parts of papers any more. They often don't follow from everything so far, so I ignore the opinion.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[RhettLivingston]

You're implying that they have advantages due to income related connections. I don't buy that.

You have to look at the whole person. You can't limit your thoughts to grades, degrees, and book smarts. Instincts and comfort in your environment are usually more important as long as you're at least average in the other stuff.

Kids whose parents have higher incomes are probably more likely to have grown up in an environment in which their parents discussed problems and used reasoning skills to solve them. They had a different education at home from day one. They may have slept with books instead of Teddy Bears. And the shows on the TV might have been very different.

Life experience in the culture you're trying to work in usually trumps what we traditionally think of as knowledge as long as the knowledge reaches a minimum threshold.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[doctorvo]

Except that kids whose parents have higher incomes get a disproportionate percentage of the paid internships. Has nothing to do with ability

Higher income in parents correlates with higher IQ in parents, better early childhood, and better education. All of those statistically predict higher ability for the children. So, children of high income parents get a disproportionate percentage of paid internships because such children actually have higher ability.

...unpaid as an intern for 35 years

[j-beda]

"This is That" is a statire news show:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thisis...

Meet the man who went unpaid as an intern for 35 years

After being offered an unpaid position as CEO of his company, Bill Marshall has had enough and is blowing the whistle on unpaid internships.

"For 35 years they just kept telling me I was getting on the job experience ... now I know I was being taken advantage of." ....

I wish...

[Archtech]

... that it were only The Grauniad that would pretend to be shocked that employees starting paid work later tend to earn less after a given time.

But sadly it's the entire Western mainstream media. When not peddling lies about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela - well, foreigners in general - they resort to "shocking" stories like this.

Willing to work for Free

[Anonymous Coward]

(Interviewer): Oh, I see on your Resume` that you are willing to work for free?

(Job Seeker): Well.. I Interned for free while in college..

(Interviewer): Indeed. I believe we have the perfect position for you at our company, how soon can you start?

Re:Willing to work for Free

[mark-t]

Is it normal for people to put their salaries for previous jobs on a resume?

Re:Willing to work for Free

[mikael]

Not usually. The employer might ask about your salary expectations.

Re:Willing to work for Free

[johanw]

I've never seen it. I sometimes get asked by an employer what I earned in my last job, and most recruitment agencies give you the advice to exaggerate a bit. I've once been at a place they asked for my formal salary specification but that's extremely unusual.

Re: Willing to work for Free

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a few resumes with salary info come across my desk. It always feels tacky and unprofessional.

the interns at the Institute wrote this report

[turkeydance]

i bet

Unpaid Internship

[Neuronwelder]

You volunteer your services for free, and get a slap in the face in return. Well, if they don't want to pay, maybe you can get a direct job with your new experience at some other place that appreciates you?

How is it a Shock?

[wisnoskij]

How is it a shock that someone with more experience makes more money?

Lump sum of labor fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot reader BarbaraHudson warns unpaid internships are also "a possible indicator of a large oversupply of workers to jobs available and downward pressure on pay."

There's an essentially infinite amount of useful work that desperately needs doing - everything from finding cures for more cancers (that requires relatively high levels of training) to patrolling our streets to keep them safe (that requires relatively lower levels of training). So, given that there's an effectively unlimited amount of real meaningful work that desperately needs doing, how can there ever be an "oversupply" of workers?

At the most simplistic theoretical level, if you assume diminishing returns on labor rather than economies of scale in terms of demand for labor and if you assume that people are infinitely greedy rather than simply working to meet their needs in terms of supply of labor - then you can get the supply and demand curves for labor to slope the right way and form a stable equilibrium. But, in that model there should, by definition, never be any unemployment - wages will fall or rise to a level where everyone who wants to work at that wage point has a job.

So why is their unemployment at all? And, more broadly, why are there some countries with a strong middle class where everyone who is willing to work an honest 9-5 can be confident of earning enough to a support a small family simply but comfortably - while other countries have massive inequality with a small mostly-hereditary ruling class lording it over everyone else who is trapped in desperate poverty no matter how hard they work?

Re:Lump sum of labor fallacy

[BarbaraHudson]

Why? Because a French Literature grad isn't equipped to discover a cure for cancer. Also, there is not an unlimited demand for people searching for a cure for cancer - simply because there is not an unlimited supply of funds and resources to support an unlimited amount of people doing cancer research.

This was a study not experiment, correlation only

[itwasgreektome]

There is a great danger in inferring causation here, as this was a survey and not an experiment (with people randomly assigned to either group). The article wrongly states there is causation at play- that going into an internship caused them to be paid less later, rather than a real possibility that those that couldn't get jobs (or well paying jobs) decided to go the intern route instead. And those that got accepted into well paying jobs took them. So the cause might well be that the lesser paid or non-existent jobs caused the internship rather than the reverse.

Say it ain't so!

[Kokuyo]

Getting people used to working for no money at all makes those very same people appreciate low wages more than people who demand fair pay?

Le shock!

Wait what?

[SCVonSteroids]

You guys are getting paid?!

You're missing my point

[rsilvergun]

my kid got lucky and got a paid one, but she would have taken an unpaid one if she hadn't just to give her one more edge when it came time to select students.

What I'm saying is, kids aren't taking internships to make more money like they used to when I was a kid. They're taking them because college has become hyper competitive and if they don't have something besides a 4.0 they won't be allowed to proceed with their academic career. Basically, the study's implied conclusion (that kids make less money if they do an unpaid internship) is pointless. Kids aren't doing internships for more money after graduation. They're doing it out of desperation to get into their last 2 years of school. And yeah, that's kinda screwed up right there.

Re:You're missing my point

[ranton]

You implied your kid got a paid internship to get into her 300 level courses, which would mean the internship was before her junior year. The article is not referring to the benefits of paid / unpaid internships before graduation, it is referring to graduates who take unpaid internships after they have a degree.

I agree the study is pointless, but not because it is ignoring internships taken before graduation. If unpaid internships after graduation are a real thing (I had never heard of them) then it something worth studying. It just needs better control groups than this study.

Completely agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Colleges rake it in. This is due to the amazing abundance of taxpayer-backed student loan money. Also, this is due to the widespread understanding that one must have a college degree in order to succeed in business and in life.

The very unfortunate net effect here is that our population is tremendously over-educated. Some degrees (like journalism, for example) churn out more graduates each year than there are job openings on the entire planet. These kids are being sold an utter fantasy and are facing lifelong debt, no realistic job prospects in their chosen field, and depression from their shattered dreams.

I imagine that once upon a time a college education really differentiated someone in the labor market, and opened the door to a higher economic class. This worked precisely because the majority of people could not afford it. Now that we have evened-out the playing field, the resultant oversupply of educated labor has made the value of such workers plummet. We respond to this problem by continuing to make it worse.

There are still some fields where one can be differentiated by true competence: any field where knowledge and education simply aren't enough to succeed; where one needs significantly above-average genetics behind their brain power in order to succeed. Education is still a necessary prerequisite, but education alone will not prepare a person to face the challenges. There, and only there, can students expect to find high paying work when they graduate.

But....most people can't do those jobs, and hate them anyway.

Re:Completely agree

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a podcast by the MIT admissions tutor that the "undergraduate degree has become the high-school diploma of the 21st century". Everyone has one.

Re:Completely agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Colleges don't "rake it in." America's public university system used to be just that--an education system paid for by the public through taxes. 30 years ago a state university typically got 80% of their budget through the state. Today a state university is lucky to get 25% of their budget through the state. That shortfall has to come from somewhere so tuition has skyrocketed.

Re:Completely agree

[Quirkz]

The very unfortunate net effect here is that our population is tremendously over-educated. Some degrees (like journalism, for example) churn out more graduates each year than there are job openings on the entire planet. These kids are being sold an utter fantasy and are facing lifelong debt, no realistic job prospects in their chosen field, and depression from their shattered dreams.

This is kinda-true, but not the whole picture. You don't always have to major in what will be your future career path. I studied physics, but ended up in computing, as did a lot of my classmates. And during the dot-com bust, I was saved from complete bankruptcy not by any of my science background, but by freelance proofreading gigs, despite the fact that the world has more trained journalists than ants.

There's also my brother, who channeled his journalism degree into being a proofer and office manager at a design firm, bounced around a bit, and ended up as a copy editor at Apple. He joked that he may have been one of the highest-paid editors in the world.

Anecdotes aren't data and all that, but reading and writing skills don't have to be a waste, just because the label on your major isn't what your job ends up being.

That is the shock finding

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this a shock?
As someone in a field where interns get paid relatively well, I would say this seems obvious.
Doing a job for free, is basically saying that your skills are valued at 0.
Why the fuck would someone pay you a lot of money for that?
Just think. You start working at $0 per month, I start at $5000.
Next year you negotiate a raise of 10%, and so do I.
Now you are at $0, and I'm at $5500.
So you decide enough is enough and manage to get a huge raise of $2000.
I get another $500 raise and am now at $6000.
If you take an unpaid internship, any future employer knows that if push comes to shove, you will take it up the ass.
They will threaten you with "we'll just hire an unpaid intern to replace you", and you will say, okay, I don't need that much money.

Funding

[rsilvergun]

it's not cheap to hire more teachers. You need more facilities, more resources. The kids can't pay enough to cover that cost. College is a _lot_ more expensive then folks believe. We've been hiding that cost with massive government subsidies. Those subsidies got pulled by Clinton & Bush Jr.

It's just like our roads. We've got the existing infrastructure that was paid for by the feds back in the day and it works, but it's not nearly enough and we're having real problems now because of it.

And you're right, it doesn't make sense. That's why it's a problem that's not being addressed let alone solved. It's hard to explain to people that a kid with a 3.8 GPA might be kicked out of school. It doesn't make any sense. You hear it and you don't believe it. So the problem exists but folks ignore it because they don't believe it's happening...

Re:Funding

[Njorthbiatr]

Then you raise the cost of the class.

Yeah, this is why I want my kid in a good school

[rsilvergun]

the quality of the school she graduates from will determine her base salary, which will in turn determine how much she makes for pretty much the rest of her life. Raises are a percentage of your current pay and your next job will consider your current salary when bargaining.

It's amazing, and more than a little terrifying, how decisions you make as a dumb kid completely shape every aspect of your adult life...

unpaid internships are basically illegal in the US

[netsavior]

The federal regulations on them include provisions that the company receive "no immediate advantage" from the activities of the intern... in other words, they can't do real, profitable work for free.

Not that the law is actually enforced.

But if the company is willing to skirt employment law in order to get something for nothing, they are going to fuck you once you get hired there too.

Re:When History Works Against You... rule 1

[mark-t]

If you must justify this position say "confidential to past employer".

So... lie?

I'm not saying you should necessarily disclose your previous salaries, but lying in a job interview is not a good way to start a relationship with any company.

Re:Utter nonsense

[BarbaraHudson]

Maybe having to settle for an unpaid internship is a message that either your talents would be better employed elsewhere, or that the field you want to go in sucks?

Shock?

[Anonymous Coward]

The finding is not a shock. If you work in an industry or for a company that relies on free or reduced price labor then it should come as no shock they wonâ(TM)t pay proper wages.

Not all internships are created equal...

[__aaclcg7560]

My paid internship came about because my roommate's work needed an extra QA tester but didn't have any money in the budget for a full time staff member. For six months I regressed 600+ old bugs, organized the storage closet, and wrote a 250-page manual. That started my technical career 20+ years ago.

Re:Not all internships are created equal...

[__aaclcg7560]

And look where you are now!

I'm the highest wage earner in my blue collar family — and the last one still living in Silicon Valley.

Causation

[knightghost]

From what I've seen, people going into unpaid internships are the lower quality students that couldn't find paying jobs. It makes sense that they don't progress as fast later.

Re:This was a study not experiment, correlation on

[Tablizer]

The same thing occurred to me. The graduates may end up where they do for a reason. A thorough test would randomly place half the group into unpaid internships and the other half in paid positions. But that would short-circuit the interview process, and interview ability affects ones career in general (longer term).

For example, if you are a poor interviewer, you would be less likely to get a job out of school and have to settle for unpaid internships etc. But the process mentioned above would put poor interviewers into jobs they otherwise would NOT get.

Thus, it's difficult to devise an experiment to fully test a causation relationship. The only one I can think of right now is to yank some portion out of their newly acquired job and put them into unpaid internships. But neither the graduate nor the company would be happy with that. You'd have to mess with lives and commerce to get good studies.

Software engineering faces a similar problem: companies don't want to be guinea pigs for real software they depend on. Thus, very indirect causation models have to be created, which makes it a soft science.

For example, certain personalities may gravitate toward certain companies, project types, and/or languages. Thus, the project results may reflect staff skills and habit as much as or more so than the technology used, and therefore saying technology X is better than Y is dubious. You'd have to force employees into situations they may not otherwise want to get sufficient randomization.

correlation vs causation

[boulat]

Correlation is not causation. Majority of paid internships prefer students from top-ranked universities, while unpaid internships take community/city/state college kids who won't get paid as much even after they graduate with a degree.

It's technically a job

[rsilvergun]

but she was recommended by the school, so I don't know what else to call it.

But who in their right mind takes an unpaid internship after graduation? That's not an internship, that's being taken advantage of by a weak job market. There's nothing worth studying there. It's a blight that needs to be stamped out. A way of having an employee without paying them, which at least in my country used to be very, very illegal.

Re:It's technically a job

[tlhIngan]

But who in their right mind takes an unpaid internship after graduation? That's not an internship, that's being taken advantage of by a weak job market. There's nothing worth studying there. It's a blight that needs to be stamped out. A way of having an employee without paying them, which at least in my country used to be very, very illegal.

In Canada, it's illegal to take on an employee for free - they must get something out of it. So-called "unpaid internships" do happen, but the intern MUST be getting an education out of it. If they're being the office coffee fetcher, they can (and have) legally sued.for compensation as the educational value of running to the local coffeeshop is suspect at best.

In other words, if you want to take on an unpaid intern, you must provide them with work that meaningfully educates them. They must learn something that will provide them with the requisite skills the job will entail. This is mostly because the medical field is rife with this, so as long as they're getting a medical education out of it, it's fine.

It's resulted in companies like HootSuite having to pay fair wages to the interns - coffee fetching, and even "doing real work" do not qualify unless there is an education component.

The company I work for is more conservative despite being a high-tech company. They pay everyone - even co-ops and interns. Far easier to play by the rules and really, if you can't afford to pay them even the lowest of wages for an extended job interview, there really isn't a job to be had.

Colleges don't rake it in

[rsilvergun]

unless their for profit. My kid's going to a public university. The only admin folks making good money are the dean the football coach and the basketball coach. Everybody else makes jack. The professors make low six figures, but they're also tops in their fields. Most are there so they can get money to do the kinds of basic research that corporations won't fund because while both interesting & beneficial it doesn't pay off for decades.

College is just really, really expensive. It always has been, but we funded it with tax dollars taken mostly from the upper class. We did that because post WWII folks felt they were owed a good life with an education. People seem to have lost sight of that. Or if they think they're owed something they think it's just them that's owed it and that everybody else should just pay for it themselves.

Re:Colleges don't rake it in

[Anonymous Coward]

For the amount of expertise, work experience, and knowledge that your average professor has in their field, yes, low six figures is 'jack'. Of course, this does depend on the field, but even in the humanities many professors could earn more in private industry than staying in the world of academia. They are also quite aware of this, are willing to trade potential higher earnings for increased freedom to pursue their own topics of interest.

You have to remember, someone who is a tenured or tenure track professor, even at a state school, isn't just another schlub with a PhD. The competition for those slots is unbelievably competitive, and even factoring everyday job politics, if you're not the very best of the best, you're not even close to being in the running.

Re:Colleges don't rake it in

[TheRaven64]

If you think professors (the ones he said were making 'low six figures') are 'admin folks' (the ones he said were making 'jack', then I suspect you were ripped off for your degree.

Re:Colleges don't rake it in

[butchersong]

They could probably cut 90% of the humanities profs and still provide just as good an education while saving a bit on the budget but I take your point. State universities aren't quite as bad as the colleges and the for profits which are for the most part really terrible.

It doesn't work like that

[rsilvergun]

kids can only borrow so much money. If you raise the cost of class you don't get more students, you just switch from a system where the top students get to go to school (merit) to one where money decides who gets to go. You haven't actually solved the problem and you've debatably made it worse (some argue that money should decide everything in civilization).

Common sense

[SCVonSteroids]

I don't understand why this is shocking.

These people end up taking unpaid internships because its their last hope to get in the industry. As a student, you should actively be trying to figure out how you can apply the things you've learned to real world issues. Employers pick up on the students that ask questions about real issues during visits, networking events, what-have-you, not the ones who ask if the company has an employee lounge with nice comfy chairs for break time.

I'm sure there are the unfortunate cases, but from observation (I live in Canada, maybe the rest of the world has it differently, I don't know) it tends to be the less skilled/lazy folks who get the unpaid internships. Those who end up doing something about their pitfalls during these unpaid internships should have earned their place in the industry, and will soon be getting theirs, because they've shown that they care. Employers love that. Anyone else should just go back to school, or flip some burgers.

Dumb is Not Better

[JimSadler]

Any employee that is dumb enough to work for free would also tend to be the one that a potential employer could slaughter in a job interview. I doubt that many of the top students in computer training in universities go for intern positions. I see it as a sort of admission that the potential employee is not strong enough in their standing in college. If one can do it it is far better to have potential employers begging to hire you at top dollar. Being first in class at a major university is not easy.

Screw that!

[p51d007]

I've been gainfully employed for almost 40 years. Right out of college. If I'm not worth paying for my labor, then it's not worth working for a company.

You're lying

[rsilvergun]

or being lied to. Not sure which. See here. Took me a few seconds on google to find that. The sad thing is you managed to get modded up.

Cutting student loan funding isn't to solution. All that does is force poor kids completely out of college. Like it was before we started funding higher education with tax dollars post WWII.

If you're just being lied to please educate yourself on google. If you're actively lying then, well, fuck off you right wing revisionist. Right back at you.

Re:You're lying

[Rockoon]

From 80% to 25% state funded...

...while revenue increased 1120%

Now you can read all the words on the internet you want... but in math world 25% of 1120% is significantly larger than 80%

Are you too stupid to fucking know that regular people can do the math? or that regular people might even be able to figure out that State funding has increased faster than inflation?

Congratulations. You found an article with zero numbers that calls the factual 250% increase in State funding as a "cut" ... in other words... you found fake news... propaganda.. the numbers don't lie you dumb fuck

Re:You're lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Constantly calling people "dumb fucks"? Is that how you roll? Good luck getting any type of respect here doing that. What are you, eleven years old?

Re:You're lying

[cheesybagel]

Of course total state funding to universities is increasing faster than inflation if more people go to colleges. What we REALLY want to know is the funding/student adjusted for inflation.

Re:You're lying

[avandesande]

Poor kids used to work part time to pay for school. If the free money punch bowl is taken away tuition would fall into line and poor kids could pay for school again with a part time job.

Re:You're lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting student loan funding isn't to solution. All that does is force poor kids completely out of college.

As oppose to leaving the poor students with crippling debt before they even enter the work force? It's partly a supply and demand problem, when everyone has a degree then people with degrees will be valued less. Another part of the problem is the fact that a large portion of degrees are either completely useless or unneeded for the types of jobs most people get. The result is that most students, particularly the poor ones, would be better off without having gone to college. We need a filter of sorts for access to college, and while price isn't a fair one, it would still be better on the whole than what we have. Perhaps we could implement something like the German system in which high school grades decide whether a student can go to college or trade school (unless he can shell out the full price of college). Our system of guaranteed loans have increased the price of tuition across the board, and they don't even disappear if you file for bankruptcy! This, on the whole, is leaving many people worse off than not going to college at all.

Give scholarships to the talented ones, give

Re:You're lying

[Rockoon]

Constantly calling people "dumb fucks"? Is that how you roll?

Its called honesty.

Re:You're lying

[Rockoon]

State funding is still higher regardless of the number of people going.

We have:

Starting percentage of state-supplied college tuition at the start of the period.
Percentage change of the total tuition over 30 years.
Percentage change of the state-supplied college tuition over 30 years.

If you are too much of a dumbfuck to figure it out that the only reason inflation is notable here is to observe if it increased faster or slower, then you can't be fucking helped until you learn math.

State funding increased in every metric but the one where "25%" is less than "80%" ... the most dishonest bullshit comparison possible using those two numbers.... and you fucking did it.

Re:You're lying

[cheesybagel]

Is it that hard to figure out that if there are more people going to college then the state needs to spend more funds with that? You assume the tuition covered all costs to begin with which is not the truth at all.

Re:You're lying

[cheesybagel]

http://www.chronicle.com/inter...

Re:You're lying

[cheesybagel]

http://www.chronicle.com/artic...

Re:You're lying

[avandesande]

There are numerous examples of state colleges increasing administrative spending as well as spending frivolously on infrastructure.

the banks are raking it in with the loans and the

[Joe_Dragon]

the banks are raking it in with the loans and the schools have no need to cut the price.

pretty obvious, isn't it?

[doctorvo]

Almost every graduate taking an unpaid internship can expect to be worse off three years later than if they had gone straight into work.

Well, yes, the population of people who are forced to take unpaid internships is less skilled and has fewer choices than those who have the option of taking a paid job right away.

Slashdot reader BarbaraHudson warns unpaid internships are also "a possible indicator of a large oversupply of workers to jobs available and downward pressure on pay."

No, it's just an indicator of a large oversupply of people with useless degrees, the result of government subsidies of such useless degrees.

Affirmative Action doesn't work like that

[rsilvergun]

and I'm tired of hearing folks blather on about it in those terms. This is how it works:

Businesses, schools and other organizations are not allowed to discriminate on the bases of race or gender. They must keep track of the race and gender of applicants and the reasons why they choose a given applicant. If the percentage of a given race or gender in their organization is less than the percentage in the local community they must surrender their records in order to show they are not making racially or gender motivated hiring or admitting decisions (which most have long since decided should not be legal, you can disagree if you want, but be aware that if you do you are a racist. I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact).

There are no quotas. You can hire 100% white males if you want. You just have to have paperwork that proves you did it because they were the most qualified applicants. You have not nor have you ever been passed over for a black woman (or any other combination of minority) because of Affirmative Action.

I don't bring this up because I'm some starry eyed SJW. I'm upset you're blaming your economic situation on Affirmative Action quotas instead of the real culprit: declining middle class job opportunities caused by lower pay and outsourcing; all of which was orchestrated by wealthy plutocrats to your detriment and mine. Affirmative Action is one of the many distractions they use to divide the working class against itself. We can't start solving our problems for real until we face up to that.

Re:Affirmative Action doesn't work like that

[TheRaven64]

You just have to have paperwork that proves you did it because they were the most qualified applicants.

Who is the most qualified applicant? Do you interview? If not, then how do you rank degrees from different universities, how do you evaluate education versus not-quite-relevant work experience? How do you moderate for age (you're not just giving the job to the oldest person, because they've got the most experience, are you)? If you do interview, what does your company do to compensate for implicit bias? Are your interviewers going to be subconsciously biased to the upper middle class white male who looks and sounds just like them? Or towards the black woman who they think will tick diversity checkboxes and make them look better? Or towards the hot blond of their preferred gender that they think might sleep with them? Do you have documentation to ensure that you're entirely objective in all of these ways? Of course not, because no company does.

Re:Affirmative Action doesn't work like that

[TheRaven64]

Mate, being a professional manager I can (and do) make those decisions on a daily basis. Not only will I choose the most qualified applicant, I will be able to document and justify that decision quite easily.

Lots of people can justify things that are not actually true, that's not an achievement.

Don't believe something to be impossible just because you don't know how to do it!

I don't believe it's impossible because I don't know how to do it, I believe it's impossible because multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown that it's impossible. For example, one published last year showed that the same hiring managers would rate a male applicant stronger than a female one and would be able to justify it, but would use the inverse justification when the candidates profiles were inverted ('this candidate is stronger because he has more on-the-job experience' or 'this candidate is stronger because he has more relevant qualifications', you'd get either justification and it would be honestly believed to be objective - oh, and it wasn't just men who had this bias, women were slightly more likely to prefer the male candidate than men when hiring).

No, not at all

[rsilvergun]

there's not enough funding to run a big enough program for all the qualified applicants. They could raise tuition but that wouldn't really help. College is already at the limits of affordability even accounting for the loans. Raising prices would just mean fewer students could afford to enter. So all that does is change the system from one where only the top kids get to finish school (merit based) to one where only the well to do kids get to finish.

Basically, this isn't a problem we can solve with supply/demand economics. The only way for any of this to work is for the government to step in and fund public Universities, which is what they did for about 40 years Post WWII until Regan, Clinton & the Bushes (and the State legislatures) started slashing funding

Re:No, not at all

[thegarbz]

there's not enough funding to run a big enough program for all the qualified applicants.

You missed the point. Even if there's only funding for one applicant, if you can't select that applicant reliably on GPA alone then something is wrong with the process.

You're revenue figures are false

[rsilvergun]

they come from private for profit schools that rose up as blue collar work disappeared due to outsourcing and people who couldn't hack college found themselves without opportunities and desperately trying to get ahead. They did indeed take advantage of cheap, guaranteed government loans. The public universities are non-profit. They have no revenues per se.

You know all this. You know exactly what the problem is, which is that we abandoned the working class so the rich could have tax cuts. Are you one of their lackeys or do you just enjoy trolling? You've got the talking points down too well to just be some random yahoo. Either way you should be ashamed of yourself. You and your ilk bring down all of civilization out of fear, anger and hatred. Does it feel good? Is it worth it?

BS

[Billly Gates]

I HATE HR like most of us. First off I think this study is full a crap.

HR wants:
1. Experience only at work (not at school or as a hobby) as Taleo or talent acquisition software will delete it off their shitty ATS application software where your application is deleted if you do not have this
2. In interviews again experience only in work in an office or you == McDonalds worker in terms of knowledge for the job. It is impossible to learn at home or a university where we are exposed to PC troubleshooting in Computer Science degrees (sarcasm meter on last sentence)
3. No gaps in related work field as this means you must have been fired and a trouble maker
4. No references is dead water as it means you are a bad employee then as you are hiding something.

An internship or some useless job in an office that pays little is the only way you can get past HR and the Taleo system that filters out applicants. How else are you going to get that reference, close the gap, and gain experience you can use for bullet points in SEO that recruiters use?

Re:Utter nonsense

[Billly Gates]

Well Barbara I left the I.T. field for awhile when the last recession was hard.

I had to move in with my parents and work useless craigslist gigs and make shit at temp agencies to prove to HR I was employable first for 2 years. Then I started to recover. You got to start somewhere and the world is a very cruel place. Especially in the workplace.

The only way for you to give the finger to HR is to have them fight for you based on your skills. If you have no experience HR will treat you like crap and not even talk to you if you are not worthy of your time.

I assume too due to prejudice as a trans gendered individual too your experience is the only way HR and managers give you the light of day too sadly. Without this you are screwed

Not greedy enough

[fatp]

Those accepting unpaid internships are not greedy enough to find higher paying jobs

Re: Trump will fix this

[butchersong]

After Brexit the plan is to annex the UK and convert it into 4 new states -Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland.

Re:Yeah, this is why I want my kid in a good schoo

[ErichTheRed]

Not entirely true. There are some positions such as investment banking, white shoe management consulting and corporate law firm jobs that are very sensitive to the school you go to. People like me who went to state schools just don't get these opportunities.

As an example...a graduate from Big State U with good grades will likely be able to get an entry level position at a mid-range consulting company like Accenture or KPMG, because those firms live and die on the number of cheap, non-offshore "requirements gatherers" and "PowerPoint deliverers" that they can fly to customer sites 50 weeks out of the year. They will most likely not be able to get a job with McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company or the other high-end fancy consulting firms. These companies almost exclusively hire from the Ivy League schools or require things like military connections, and these positions almost always lead to extremely lucrative careers because you're basically setting yourself up to be on a huge customer's executive ranks when you're done living in hotels and airports. Ir's a closed club and they don't really care _how_ you got to an Ivy League school, but they do care if you graduated from one because they have a lot of high-end customers to impress.

Sometimes it's required, when it's not it's a scam

[ErichTheRed]

There are some fields where it's just expected that you'll work either a completely unpaid or minimum-wage internship. Living in the NYC area, I see it all the time...publishers, media companies, fashion design houses and advertising firms consider it a new graduate's foot-in-the-door opportunity. There are plenty of stories of essentially unpaid interns doing a staff's bidding and putting in massive amounts of hours because everyone else is willing to do the same thing. If new grads could pay these companies for the opportunity, they would...it's the (unpaid) equivalent of programmers being willing to be abused by video game companies just to have the opportunity to work in video games...if you don't want to do your 10th consecutive 120 hour work week, there are 200 others willing to do it.

Anywhere else, it's a scam...interns should expect at least a small amount of money that isn't minimum wage and also expect to actually learn something on the job. Unpaid interns basically run errands and get coffee, but engineering interns usually get at least some of the grunt work associated with a project. That's actually a good way to learn whether you like the field enough to stick it through the grunt work years. I did plenty of grunt work IT jobs in the beginning of my career and put up with it because I knew I'd be doing something more interesting later.

My company pays our interns

[Methadras]

I work for a medical device developer in San Diego and we interview interns from all over the country and the world as a whole. We are very selective about who we want to bring in as an intern because even though we know many of them don't have the skills yet, our company is a training ground to give them those skills. They will learn things here that no other company would dare teach an intern and in doing so they will be heads and shoulders beyond their classmates when they return. We also pay our interns. We pay them entry level engineering salaries for the time they are here. What they get from being an intern here, they will get nowhere else. They are thrust with levels of responsibilities that entry level post graduate engineers get and they thrive because of it. We've built a very good winning formula for our company as a whole and it's paying off very well for us.