I will never for the life of me understand "unpaid internships" as a career path. I get that they exist, and they continue to exist because... they currently exist and "that's how it's done", but... holy cow. "Come slave away for months on end with no pay, and maybe one day you can continue doing it and we'll give you a bit of money. Maybe". And people fall for it. And continue to fall for it.
Perhaps it's a "prisoner's dilemma" problem (too late to find the better analogy if it's not) but if everyone stopped taking 'unpaid internships'... those wanting the work done would have to pay.
What about "we hire from the pool of those who contribute to our open source projects. If you want to work for us, that's where to start?"
The problem with unpaid internships is that they are closely supervised and hence end up with something like an unpaid employee. But what if the relationship is more loosely coupled? What if "just because we won't pay you for this doesn't mean someone else won't" is a part of the message?
The beauty of open source development is I can do it in my free time, and because I want to. Often times having open source development on your resume is simply a way to show you're a motivated developer and to demonstrate the quality of the code you produce. I'm not sure it can be directly compared against an unpaid internship, apples and oranges.
Right, but part of the question is, if unpaid internships are so bad, what about mentored open source development? How can one draw a line?
From my perspective, hiring people in related open source technologies means little ramp-up time development-wise, it means seeing someone who has a somewhat entrepreneurial spirit, and the like, all on top of the benefits of unpaid internships.
That might happen at one or a few companies, but it doesn't describe the entire software industry or even a large portion. It seems to in some other career paths.
this is exactly why unionism was born. to allow a collective voice for workers which can stand up to employers. unfortunately due to a number of factors this is a declining factor in modern workplace relations.
Unions don't necessarily help. Look at pilots, for example: The unions are run by the pilots with the most seniority, and as a result those pilots get (a) all of the job security, and (b) most of the money.
I delivered pizzas after I got my architecture degree and didn't magically find my dream job. The internship program is 3 years at near minimum wage after a masters degree, because that's the way it has always been. Never mind trying to take and pass the architects exam which staggeringly few pass the first time.
I 'do' architecture for fun now and make far more money than nearly everyone I went to college with. Assuming that they are even working.
You'd take a job that provides real income, as would everyone else, and the people wanting journalism work done would offer to pay up... ???
The problem is that there's always someone willing to go work for free, often with crappy conditions, because they hope that maybe someday someone will throw them a low wage bone because of all their 'experience' at working for free.
Depends. If the unpaid internship had a reputation of leading to a well-paying job, it may certainly be worth pursuing over McBurger. This is called "consumption smoothing" -- we do it when we're young and when we're old, and possibly in between, when we're unable to financially support ourselves.
It's not good to remain a permanent unpaid intern.
Isn't that rather much a false dichotomy? A person with a journalism degree should be able to figure out several ways in which to provide themselves beyond the immediate-but-inadequate burger-flipping versus delayed-and-maybe-still-inadequate that unpaid internships provide.
Perhaps it's a "prisoner's dilemma" problem (too late to find the better analogy if it's not) but if everyone stopped taking 'unpaid internships'... those wanting the work done would have to pay.