Internships 101

For a Working Transition From College, Try an Internship
By Mary Ellen Slayter
Washington Post, November 21, 2004

Graduation is just a few months away. Four years of night-long study sessions -- and weekend-long parties -- are about to end. After several years of being broke and living in tiny dorm rooms, I bet you just can't wait to transition into your first real live . . . internship.

You didn't really think they were going to hire you to run the place fresh out of school, did you? Ha. You're lucky if they are willing to "hire" you at all. Internships have become a fact of modern work life, with even experienced workers slogging through them when they switch careers.

Here are answers to a few basic questions about making the transition through professional post-adolescence.

Q: What is an internship?

A: It's a (preferably brief) training period for someone breaking into a new profession.

To read the rest of the article click here

Creative Solution to Student Loan Dilemma

College Loans Need Creative Change
By Michelle Singletary
Washington Post, November 28, 2004

For many people, a higher education is the ticket to a high- paying job.

But what happens when the cost of that ticket becomes a deterrent to choosing a career that will pay a modest or middle-income salary?

"My worry is that even if people can afford to take out the loans, their career choices are going to be biased in favor of paying off their loans -- biased in favor of careers that will make more money," says former labor secretary Robert B. Reich.

I recently had the pleasure of hearing Reich speak to several hundred financial aid professionals attending a conference in Phoenix.

Reich, who is now the Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, spoke with compassion for the many people who are graduating from graduate and professional schools with a record amount of student loan debt.

But worrying isn't going to help people pay for their education. We have to come up with bold, creative solutions to address the rapidly rising costs of higher education and the steady reduction in government-subsidized help to finance such education, Reich said.

In fact, Reich has an idea -- an idea I think is worth debating.

What would you think of a student loan program in which people who borrow to attend graduate school would then pay back a small percentage of their annual salary over a 10- or 15-year period? Everyone would pay the same percentage regardless of income.

All the money would go into a general student loan fund and then be lent to others for graduate school. Private lenders could provide the loans, which would be guaranteed by the federal government.


To read the rest of the article click here

Where do you stack up?

Most Lucrative College Degrees

Latest survey on hiring and starting salaries finds there may be more in '04 for many college grads.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior staff writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – The job market may not be booming. But for many in the college class of 2004, it won't be quite as dismal as it was for last year's grads. That's the preliminary conclusion of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), which released its latest quarterly starting-salary survey on Thursday.

To read the rest of the article click here

The Grad School Question I

Grad School or Not?
By The Liberal Arts Dude

To go to grad school or not?—that is the question. I have actually been thinking about whether or not to go to grad school for a long time—since 1997, in fact. But the enormous financial commitment it entails always made me think twice. I still had a sizeable amount left in my undergraduate student loans. The last thing I want was to double or even triple it and lock myself further into debt and into paying it back well into the rest of my life.

My sister and mother, however, have taken the plunge, as well as two of my friends. My sister is pursuing a Master’s degree in international relations; my mother is applying for graduate programs in the same; one of my friends just finished a PhD in Sociology; and another is pursuing a Master’s in Library Science. I also live in an environment where grad school is just part of everyday existence—Washington DC is the type of place where you meet many ambitious, career-minded folks who hold graduate degrees (but who work in fields that aren’t necessarily related to their degrees).

Some months back I went to a seminar given by a consultant who runs his own company advising people on university admissions and helping them present themselves in the best possible light to admissions counselors. The advice he gave for people contemplating grad school boils down to two reasons where the decision to go to graduate school makes sense: (1) If you want to get the credentials to change careers; or (2) If getting an advanced degree is a requirement for you to move up in your current career field. If you go to grad school for any other reason, he says, it is probably not worth the time, effort and trouble it takes to get an advanced degree.

So after learning that, I thought I was off the hook. I wasn’t really planning on changing career fields any time soon and my current field, publishing, values specialized technical skills and on-the-job experience much more than degrees held. In addition, in terms of my future and my career, I have ruled out professions that require a graduate degree: I did not want to be a doctor, ruling out medical school; I did not want to be a lawyer, ruling out law school; I did not want to be a college professor, ruling out academic PhD programs. Given these, I thought I had resolved the grad school question and can just concentrate on getting skills and experience for the rest of my career.

But for some reason, the question won’t go away. Here are some thoughts that come to mind as I contemplate this question:

1) A graduate degree is the college degree of these times. You can’t advance in the world without a graduate degree the way in years past you won’t have doors open to you without a college degree.

2) Even if you were working in a field unrelated to your graduate degree, you will still advance farther and have a higher salary the more credentials you have under your belt.

3) Doors previously closed to you and doors you don’t even know exist are more likely to open for you with a graduate degree than without.

4) The more education you have the better off you are professionally.

What do you guys think? Do these ideas deserve serious consideration and am I doing myself a disservice by ruling out grad school (at this time anyway)?

© 2004

Book Review: Office Politics

Winning Office Politics by Andrew DuBrin
By the Liberal Arts Dude

Are you the type of person who believes that all workplaces are meritocracies and to do well and advance and shine on the job all you need is hard work, a good character and work ethic, talent, determination to do a good job, get along with your co-workers and a good attitude? According to DuBrin’s book, if you hold such beliefs, you are best classified as an “Innocent Lamb” in his gradation of characters who inhabit the modern office (the others are Machiavellian, Company Politician, Survivalist and Straight Arrow depending on the degree they are willing to play political games to get ahead and to use devious and unethical practices). If you are one, he warns, you had better read his book for self-protection so as to learn strategies to combat your more devious and underhanded colleagues who can and will play dirty tricks on you if that is what it takes to get ahead.

When people think about office politics, there is always a negative connotation. “Kissing ass,” “Sucking up to management,” “Speaking indirectlyand dishonestly,” “forming secret alliances and exchanging favors”—these are all negative aspects of office politics that come to mind for most people. DuBrin, however, asserts that playing office politics is important for maintaining and advancing one’s career and for self-protection. One cannot survive on the job and for the ambitious—advance—without playing some form of office politics. DuBrin cites an example of someone who proudly proclaims that in his 30-year career that he has never participated in office politics. That person, DuBrin says, is a 55-year old mailroom clerk. Ouch. Pretty harsh example to illustrate his point—that people who understand and use office politics to their advantage are much more likely to succeed than their more politically naïve counterparts.

His chapter titles pretty much describes the content of his book: Getting the Boss on Your Side; Impressing the Higher-Ups; Gaining the Support of Co-Workers; Basic Power-grabbing Tactics; Making Political Use of Information; Devious Political Tactics; Political Blunders, etc. DuBrin’s advice is most effective when it concerns human relations and relating to your superiors, peers and subordinates. The chapters on how to win them over to your side should be required reading for all employees. His descriptions of the dirty tricks your colleagues may play against you are also excellent. Someone might encourage you, for example, to say something negative about your boss. If you do, he or she will casually mention it later to the boss making you appear foolish and disloyal and tarnishing your reputation among the higher-ups. Most of us who have been in the work world for a few years can recognize these types of devious games.

For those who have been defeated in the games of office politics, DuBrin also has chapters on Bouncing Back from Career Adversity, Surviving a Corporate Takeover, Defending Yourself Against Unfair Politics. And if you are a manager in charge of setting right an office rife with political infighting and games so you can actually get some work done, Stemming the Tide of Office Politics.

All in all I thoroughly enjoyed reading DuBrin’s book. I found most of his advice sound and his descriptions of political games people play to be right on. The overall effect of the book on me, however, was to depress me. It is one thing to occasionally observe office politics being played out in your office. It is quite another to be hit with one example after another of such games being played before you start to wonder “what kind of fucking world do we live in and what kind of fucking people do I work with? What types of backstabbing, devious games can someone be playing on me right now?” But his advice is sound. On the job it is not good enough to just do a good job. You must cultivate alliances; you have to be careful what you say and who you say it to; you have to always watch out for signs of underhanded tactics being played against you and to watch your back at all times. Most of all, you have to maintain good relations with your boss and to maintain his or her trust. Make the wrong political move in this case and you can end up in the doghouse and, eventually, fired.

I have a couple of criticisms, however. I think that DuBrin might be overemphasizing the role of office politics and success because:

1) Doesn’t talent, hard work, and being able to produce actually count? If one is all flash and no substance—if one is just about politics and maintaining political alliances but still unable to produce you will still most likely find yourself in the unemployment line. Or one can say that a combination of talent and hard work AND being adept at office politics is the best combination for success.

2) Most decent, hardworking people who work in offices do not approve of gossiping and try to stay away from it. Yet DuBrin argues that gossiping is good for one’s career. He says that it is integral for success to be able to be tuned in to the office grapevine and to have sources of information about the recent goings-on, rumors, imminent hirings and firings, layoffs, and restructuring in the organization. The downside is if you want to be in the know to the juiciest information, then you better be willing and able to provide information to your buddies as well. Which only brings about a vicious cycle of gossip and innuendos which contribute to low morale, cliques and wild rumors floating around. Most people I know will find that abhorrent, yet DuBrin seems to actually encourage such things without realizing it.

Despite these objections, I did enjoy DuBrin’s book and would highly recommend it to anyone who works in an office for a living. Especially to those “Innocent Lambs” out there, this book would be an indispensable guide to what your seemingly harmless colleagues can be capable of if your demise is a crucial step for their advancement. Or to combat the Machiavellians out there who actually stab people in the back and try to ruin careers for the sport of it. They do exist and DuBrin does an excellent job alerting us to those types of characters out there. Be ready, however, to be depressed and to feel paranoid around the office for a few days after you read it.

© 2003

Job Market 102

An idea:

Wouldn’t it be cool if some entrepreneur out there found some way to make a profitable living addressing the problem of Liberal Arts university departments churning out graduates ill-prepared for the job market? I bet something like this would take off in a big way as most departments really will be very happy to offer services and training to their Liberal Arts students relevant to the job market they will eventually enter but they lack the expertise, means, contacts and recent experience with the job market in today’s world for the recent graduate. To fill that role will be an enterprising consultant who is more in touch with what is out there in the job market than the faculty of the university, and who can successfully design courses, training programs, lectures, seminars and conferences that aim to give the young graduate a leg up on the competition in the job market. If the consultant is really good, he or she would also have contacts and information regarding internships, training programs, recruitment programs, and apprenticeships in various fields where the skills of a Liberal Arts grad can be relevant.

Here some holes in my idea:

1)Isn’t it the student’s job to take personal initiative on his or her own to get a job and to negotiate the job market? It’s just a part of Life with a capital “L” for a young person to make his or her own way in the world. No amount of college training or preparation will teach this young person about the job market than actually going out and testing the waters.

2) Lots of Liberal Arts students successfully negotiate into the job market without the help of a specialized program. Why should a university department invest money and resources into a program or consultant when many Liberal Arts grad do just fine without the help of such services?

3) Isn’t the above the job of the university career services center? How can a university department, already strapped for cash in most cases, justify additional expenses for a career consultant for their students when that service already exists for free in the university services?

4) It’s not an academic department’s job to educate its students beyond the parameters of the academic discipline. A philosophy department will teach philosophy. An English department English. A Sociology department, Sociology. Why should they concern themselves with topics that belong under the purview of the Business School or Continuing Education more than anything else—much less invest precious money and resources to it?

Good points 1-4 above. I could see how university departments, already strapped for cash and resources, will need to have a reason to justify hiring a special consultant or services. Still, I think the idea has merit and should be explored further. Any readers out there have some thoughts on how to actually get something like this off the ground?

Election Day

OK I did it. I did my civic duty that comes up every four years and voted today. Do I expect my vote to make a difference in the amount of student loans I have? Hell no! What about the rent I pay every month for housing. Hell no! What about the skyrocketing cost of continuing and post-graduate education? Hell no! What sense did it make for me to cast my vote if this was the case? Hell if I know. I guess I am just doing this voting thing because this is one small way I can make my voice heard. However, I'm under no impressions that the vote I cast will actually make a difference in the issues I care about, particularly economic issues that aren't "sexy" or run counter to mainstream American culture's love affair with free market economics. So this day I did my civic duty but I am on the lookout for a better alternative down the road, possibly for the elections ten or twenty years from now. For President and vice president the major parties had my vote today. But the rest I voted for the DC Statehood Green Party. Perhaps my support to their fledgling movement will encourage them to keep at it. Maybe someday politicians of their kind can be major players in national elections. That's really the only hopeful thing to look forward to as my belief in political participation as an effective way to address social and economic problems grows thinner and thinner the older I get.