Skip to main content

Tripping over interns

I've been aware of the concept of interns for a long time. It was something American banks, and one or two other corporates, did. They allowed wannabe bankers to be unpaid slaves for a while so the wannabes could gain work experience, and the bank could get unpaid labour to do all the jobs no one else wanted to do.

Now, not only are they over here in the UK, but interns seem to be spreading. At least two of the publishers I deal with for the Popular Science website now use interns for communicating to lowly oiks like me. Similarly, when I attended the British Science Fair in Birmingham the other week, we had a couple of people from the lovely Naked Scientists group, a team at Radio Cambridge that record a weekly science show and science podcasts, and who do the recordings for the Royal Society of Chemistry podcasts I sometimes appear on.

I thought the dynamic duo at Birmingham looked young and fresh - but then everyone under 97 does these days. But when I later spoke to my usual contact at Radio Cambridge, she said something to the effect of 'Oh, yes, we had a couple of interns doing interviews there.'

I'm really not sure about the concept. Work experience is fine, but for anything more than a week or two it ought to be paid a reasonable wage. And there's a distinct danger, just as school governing bodies sometimes prefer to employ newly qualified teachers (NQTs) because they are cheaper than experienced teachers, that companies will end up shoving out experienced staff, because they can get by using interns.

By all means employ people on a provisional contract where they have to leave after a period if they don't come up to scratch - but employ them decently, please, or not at all.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney30 September 2010 at 09:47

    Interesting, Brian, especially since I find myself inundated with requests for internships for CurvingRoad. As a non-profit with no money and little help, it's very tempting to have a young person interested in arts admin work for a few months to learn what it's really all about. The idea is that they are then more marketable to those orgs who have money to pay them. The kids seem to be okay - or resigned - to it. I guess they figure it's better for a few months thna working at Starbucks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more