I would like to highlight something in this recent thread about
internships and the requirement to come in with the skills which one
will ostensibly obtain during the internship. :
"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, ..."
I would also like to apply that same logic to all "training" positions,
and question whether most graduate students and
postdocs/postechs/postemps are being utilized as technicians, with
little or no training being obtained by those "employees". The email
below repeats something often said and and taken for granted about
professors and graduate school:
"As a professor who makes decisions to accept students for graduate
school and decisions to hire employees, I will say that I do not
evaluate paid work as superior to unpaid work, I just look at what
experiences the student have gained. For graduate school or paid
positions, I look for folks who have demonstrated that they have (or can
learn) the particular skills I need, can work outside in all weather,
work well with others (often living in close quarters) over a sustained
period of time, can carefully record and manage data, and are curious
and able to generate interesting (and answerable) questions."
I submit that the skill sets that the professor (primarily an educator
by definition and nature of the job the public institution pays them to
do) "needs", they should "obtain" by primarily having them themselves,
but then expanding upon them by Hiring technicians, or better, working
with the institution to create stable positions in which long-term
technical and other staff can be hired to do not only what that
professor "needs", but then contribute to the research of others at the
institution, and (what a travesty this would be?) have job security of
their own.
I would also submit that in any training position, a major emphasis
should never be placed on what skills the recruit has, but what they
will obtain in the position. Otherwise, it's not a training position.
I would ALSO submit that much of what is required in the statement of
above by the professor for the student (especially "can carefully record
and manage data, and are curious and able to generate interesting (and
answerable) questions") is the PROFESSOR'S JOB (in addition to the
responsibility for ALL grant writing and keeping the lab financially
solvent). If the student or any other individual has novel ideas,
curiosities or research questions, those are their property shared with
the INSTITUTION (if the institution puts "skin in the game" in the form
of facility or other support to help the individual pursue those things)
and these ideas/intellectual property should only be shared with a
professor, or any other individual, if they are willing to contribute to
their pursuit in a tangible intellectual way (not only monitarily - what
are they, investors?), if the professor's or third party's skills/work
is necessary for the project AND if the person with the original idea is
willing to work with that person. I additionally submit that all of
this be considered independently from one's employment/job status
relative to the professor: ie: all individuals have the right and should
be allowed that right's proper execution to pursue independent pursuits,
so long as their primary PAID employment responsibilities are met. So,
if a student or postdoc or any staff working at a university, under a
professor or otherwise, on project A does a good job with project A in a
timely manner and has extra time/energy/ideas to pursue their own
project B in a way that does not detract from project A and for which
they can obtain or negotiate the means to achieve Project B (through
grants, which they should have the right to be PI of, or negotiations,
or collaborations, or self-funding, access to university facilities
(partly INCLUDING the professor's lab since that lab is afforded in part
by the university, not their own money or grants alone) ).... the
professor has no automatic or default right to project B - credit for
its conception or execution nor the fruits of its success. SUCH fruits
include but are NOT limited to: authorship of publications,
corresponding authorship of publications, selection of collaborators (to
include OR exclude their faculty boss), PI'ship of grants, full patent
rights (in relation to others involved in the project who have rights to
it as well, including the institution and collaborators but NOT
including bosses or those involved with UNRELATED work), etc.
On 8/18/2013 12:02 PM, Carola Haas wrote:
Interested parties may want to read an article published in Conservation Biology on the
topic of whether/how low or unpaid "internships" exploit people entering the
field.
Whitaker, D. M. (2003), The Use of Full-Time Volunteers and Interns by
Natural-Resource Professionals. Conservation Biology, 17: 330–333. doi:
10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01503.x
Not to set aside the importance of the question of ensuring that our profession does not
exploit our youth and deny opportunity to those with economic constraints, I do want to
respond to the point of the original post--"will I benefit from an internship?"
As a professor who makes decisions to accept students for graduate school and
decisions to hire employees, I will say that I do not evaluate paid work as
superior to unpaid work, I just look at what experiences the student have
gained. For graduate school or paid positions, I look for folks who have
demonstrated that they have (or can learn) the particular skills I need, can
work outside in all weather, work well with others (often living in close
quarters) over a sustained period of time, can carefully record and manage
data, and are curious and able to generate interesting (and answerable)
questions. In general, when students do a study abroad trip or pay to
participate in an ongoing field project, I take that a little less seriously as
I assume the initial selection process was not as strict as a hiring process.
But even in those situations someone who could stick out a project living
several months in another country/field camp/etc. still has demonstrated a
fortitude that is superior to someone who has only attended classes on a
university campus.
As a financial aid student myself, I could not afford to spend my summers in
unpaid internships, but took a paid position assisting in a secretarial pool in
a state natural resources agency with a supportive boss who gave me
opportunities to do field work and report writing on the side. I tell my own
undergraduate students that gaining field experience is absolutely critical,
and that they may need to be creative to find ways to do it. If you have
parents who will support you or you can otherwise afford to take advantage of
some of these unpaid (or tuition-charging) field adventures, have fun and enjoy
it. But don't go into debt or create financial hardship for yourself (or your
family) thinking you NEED to do this to gain experience. You could work in a
gas station near a game department office or university and volunteer on
weekends at a game check station, or volunteer early mornings to help with bird
counts, or whatever, and begin to gain experience that way.
The success of our professions depends on the dedication and enthusiasm of new
people entering the field and Whitaker's exhortation to do a better job of
supporting those young professionals is a valuable read.
Carola A. Haas
Professor, Wildlife Ecology
Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Mgmt
Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Conservation
112 Cheatham Hall
MC 0321 Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061
[email protected]
540-231-9269
http://www.fishwild.vt.edu/faculty/haas.htm
On Aug 17, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Robert Gundy wrote:
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
ATD of ATB and ISI
--
Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs
Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation
http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/
http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs
https://www.facebook.com/InvertebrateStudiesInstitute
1-352-281-3643
