Let me preface with the fact that this is my first time posting to the 
listserv after having watched for a couple months, mostly scanning for jobs. 
This is not the ideal first post but it is something I feel strongly about.
To answer the question in the subject line, I think "internships" can 
provide excellent, relevant experience that future employers do find 
impactful. Like many have said in much more detail, you just need to look 
for the right factors in each internship.

On a related side topic, I have a pet peeve with the use of 'internship' 
within the biology job sector, particularly the field jobs I seek. If you 
look up definitions for internship they all tend to focus around a central 
idea: one party receives on the job training to gain new skills in exchange 
for work utilizing these new skills. Pay is never really mentioned in any 
definitions. The misuse/abuse of the word internship is a phenomenon that is 
not isolated to the biology community but it is prolific here. Internships 
by social and technical definitions are meant to provide training in new 
skills that an intern can then use in future positions. What goes on in our 
job community is often something different. The typical internship notice 
asks interns to already be proficient in the skills for the job required, 
have a 4-year degree, advanced degree preferred and accept one of three 
commonly available pay scales:
1) get paid a wage not considered legal by any state or federal labor law 
that is in fact below the national poverty line and not considered a living 
wage
2) volunteer = work for free
3) abuse the word volunteer/intern and really mean "pay to work"

In less than 1% (mental estimate) of the "internships" I have seen available 
in the last 3 years has there been a stated opportunity to gain employment 
thereafter. Internships that lead to jobs are the industry standard in every 
other industry. 
Here is the reality of what happens with so many of these internships. The 
intern is worked hard and in hard physical and mental conditions, not paid a 
living wage/not paid/paying to work, gains no new skills because experience 
was required and does not have a strong job prospect with the employer 
afterward. 

Even for the paid positions pay scale #1 is the highest available option.
Entry-level positions are nearly monopolized by field techs/assistants 
positions for academic research. Consider how much money is really offered 
to field techs and assistants. Nobody without specialized skills would sit 
down in an air conditioned room and work 40-70 hours a week for pay below 
the poverty line. Why should people with education, specialized skills, and 
prior work experience have to work outdoors in quite literally dangerous 
environments for that kind of pay in the name of biology? One poster 
mentioned the semantics employed. The words "volunteer" and "intern" are 
thrown around without regard to their actual meaning. Normally I would not 
argue about semantics because a situation is what it is despite a given 
label but, these semantics do have a negative mental effect on young 
graduates looking for work. I understand many arguments to condone this 
financial mistreatment will jump to blaming funding sources. Most job 
sources will be funded by grants in this field. It is common knowledge in 
this community that grants are limited and very finite. However, I think 
most of the subscribers are privy to the abuse that goes on in the academic 
community with grant money. Grant winners pay themselves huge gross sums on 
top of their salaries, penny pinch through the research as much as possible 
and, right before the date comes up, splurge on as much equipment as 
possible with whatever money is left over. I'm not saying this with any 
absolutes that everybody does this but it's no secret that each of these 
things happens to some degree or another with regularity. I know I have 
heard of certain professors paying themselves up to $80,0000 from a single 
grant. Here comes a bit of rhetorical satire: Imagine the day when grant 
money is re-prioritized and hard-working, upcoming biologists with degrees 
can go stomping through the forests, deserts, jungles, marshes, tundras or 
oceans of the planet while evading the dangers of venomous animals, large 
carnivores and severe weather conditions and while doing overall good for 
the world so they can bring home an honest paycheck that amounts to minimum 
wage.  That's all I'm saying should happen.
I truly hope that last sentence was a little jarring and that it provokes 
some thought in how we are currently mistreating each other. It's a shame 
that in a community where people are almost never motivated by greed, rather 
by passion, and we ourselves are taking advantage of this by paying honest, 
hard-working people a wage that can be easily surpassed by asking "would you 
like fries with that" for the same number of hours.
I have spent several hours reading and revising this message. I tried to 
remove any opinions or assumptions, and I know I did not succeed entirely. 
As another poster said earlier, this opinion that I share is a majority 
opinion within the young biologist community that is never spoken of. So 
many are afraid to speak up for themselves to just earn minimum wage in fear 
of being on some "blacklist" in the wildlife biology community. I'm not one 
of those people.

If you took the time to read this whole thing, thank you.
Robert Gundy

Reply via email to