I'm tempted to agree, but then I repeat my question above - is it better that there are opportunities that make it tough on some and exclude others, or no opportunities at all?

Also, what does 'being able to afford to work for ten weeks without pay' actually mean?

For some people I know, it has meant relying on several mates to let them sleep on a matress on their floor for a bit, living extremely frugally for a while and even taking an additional job alongside the internship (as described by LK above).

All I'm saying is, for most people, it would be possible to 'get by' for a period of 10 weeks if they wanted it badly enough (and very few of these internships don't pay travel and lunch). In fact, it could be precisely this bit of sacrifice, determination and ability to make and use contacts that is required to succeed in appealing industries like fashion, advertising and politics, where the supply of willing participants far exceeds the demand for them, in a way not dissimilar to music or professional sport.

Yeah, private schooling these days isn't cheap at all, especially if you're paying for it yourself

I think there is a difference between dossing on somebody's floor for a fortnight, and doing it for 10 weeks. One is a lot more practical than the other. I'm not sure that option is actually open to most people, or rather I'd be surprised if it wasn't unavailable to a not insignificant proportion. Given ST is asking about cheap rooms, it seems it isn't available to his daughter. It might be possible to work a full day for free, then work a shift in a bar the same night for a couple of weeks, I can't see how it is possible over ten weeks without performance in the internship itself being affected. People who could afford to do the internship without getting a second job would have a big advantage over those who had had no sleep and were exhausted from working 14-16 hour days, given often these internships are 'auditions' for real jobs.

I think there is a difference between short, unpaid, 'work experience', where the candidate in question is getting valuable experience, without actually contributing very much to the company he or she is at, and long internships where the candidate makes a contribution to the company which ordinarily would be worthy of a wage. In the former, it is difficult to argue the company ought to pay, they aren't really taking any benefit, and most people, with some sacrifice, ought to be able to do them. It might be a good idea to limit the length of such schemes, so they are available to all, but I'm not sure things like 'shadowing' are things companies ought to be compelled to pay for.

For longer internships where the candidate is doing actual work, the same arguments work as do for the minimum wage. These I imagine are the ones you had in mind when you said technically illegal, but not enforced? I think the rule ought to be enforced. Also, I think any internship lasting longer than, say, a month, regardless of whether the company receives any direct tangible benefit, ought to be paid, as otherwise I think the class of people it would be open to would be acutely discriminatory.

As for are some opportunities better than none, that makes the, IMO false, assumption, that if you forced companies to pay minimum wage to these 'interns' that they would stop offering them. They clearly get benefits from them. A work 'audition' at minimum wage would provide a much greater opportunity to examine the ability of a candidate for a job than merely an interview. There may well be fewer of these internships, but they would be going to the best candidates, not the best candidates who could afford it.

I'm reminded of an interesting (to me anyway) article I read concerning the legal profession. There are calls to have a minimum salary for training contracts, above the legal minimum wage. That isn’t something I’d agree with. I think in that case, your argument about sacrifice and determination is a strong one.

So you've done a shit load of work for nothing in order to get a 12 month temping job?

Fvck me.. This country is at rock bottom.

Is this really what it takes for an educated person to get into any sort of employment?

still trying to unpick this!!

Yes, just to be 100% clear, I believe that most of what goes on under the banner of 'internships' is illegal.



Have to agree to disagree here then. I think having to set up interns as actual employees on short-term contracts, on the payroll, for a wage, would drastically reduce the number of these internships on offer (I'd say 50% is a conservative estimate).

I know what I mean, and I think (even I'm not completely sure) it makes sense. Can't think of a better way to put it. I don't mean 'I'd be surprised if it was available to a significant proportion'!

I'm commenting on this from a distance. I haven't done one, and I haven't been involved in a company that offers them. I don't think all 'internships' are the same though. To make a basic distinction, let's call work experience internships 'placements', and doing-actual-work with a possible job at the end 'auditions'. If you limited unpaid internships to four weeks, say, then in terms of placements, where the 'intern' did not contribute to the company, companies would presumably offer the same number, but for four weeks. That way the numbers of people who genuinely couldn't afford to do the placement would be minimised, and plenty people still get vital experience. If they were forced to pay for all internships regardless of length, then I could certainly see numbers of this sort of internship being drastically affected.

In terms of auditions, I think the advantage of having a proper look at somebody before you employ them would mean companies would still offer them. Perhaps not. That's all an instinctive 'reckon'. If the number of auditions were to be reduced by 50%, it might not be worth it. Certainly if only, say, 5% more people could do them, and they were reduced by 50%, it would be a bad idea.

I'm sure though, similar arguments were made when the minimum wage was brought in. Small businesses would go under, big businesses elsewhere? That doesn't seem to have happened.

[quote="Prufrock]I'm reminded of an interesting (to me anyway) article I read concerning the legal profession. There are calls to have a minimum salary for training contracts, above the legal minimum wage. That isn’t something I’d agree with. I think in that case, your argument about sacrifice and determination is a strong one.[/quote]

Hang on....... a solicitor actually PAYING OUT money??? Never gonna happen!!

As my third year at uni, we're required to do a year's placement. At the end of the day, with all the experience I've had, I'll graduate with over 4 years in various commercial environments. In theory, that should put me ahead of other graduates...

That's what I did and thankfully they invited me back to apply for the grad scheme of the same company, of course by then you know exactly what to do in the assessment centre.

I had to live in a right shithole in East London on £15k and it was a real struggle financially and personally at times, not to mention that when you return to uni all your mates have cleared off, but means to an end and all that - no Super Noodles for tea now.

Might sound daft, but why hasn't she applied nearer to home? (I'm assuming you're from Salford way??!)

Believe me we've tried...the opportunities in the Advertising world are primarily in London. However, for those bigger agencies where they have a regional presence the opportunities are much less.

They won't even take her on a free placement?

Nope, JWT Manchrester had one unpaid vacancy and it went to someone else and other agencies she's approached have no opportunities full stop.

You'd think they'd be happy. What's the risk?

If somebody phoned me at work and said they were from a redbrick University and wanted to come and work with me for free, just so they can put it on their CV, I'd snap their hands off.

Something similar for me, the degree programme I'm on is partnered with one of the Big 4 accounting firms, so in a 4 year course, you do 18 months paid work placements, and provided you do well enough academically, including sitting some of your professional exams while still at uni, and get good feedback at work then there you're essentially guaranteed to be offered a job with them upon graduation. This also means a lot of my mates at uni are on the same course, so are working when I am, and at uni when I am so when I returned for my 4th year this year, I still knew people, and had the money to enjoy uni. Most of the opportunities do seem to be in London, although when I start as a graduate in September I've been lucky enough to secure a transfer to the Manchester office. Didn't seem like a big deal when I first applied to this about 4 or 5 years ago, but it's all worked out pretty well looking at some of my mates who have graduated and are struggling to find work.

My other daughter will be doing the same as you in September, an Accountancy degree with a view to a placement partly due to the recruitment problems her elder sister is experiencing.....vocational degrees are the future!!

Is that the EY degree at Lancaster by any chance?

Yes, it is. PWC have one similar at Newcastle, and KPMG just started theirs at Durham I think. I guess Deloitte can't be too far off launching one either. The KPMG one is interesting in that they seem to pay tuition fees but you seem to be tied into a contract with them for 6 years, not great if you find out you don't like it!