The Work Experience Conundrum

Are internships now so commonplace that value should be found elsewhere on the young person’s CV?

“Make sure that you go into the offices and sit there until someone comes and sees you. Don’t move. Don’t let them move you. Go in with a box of chocolates. Any journalist worth their salt will wonder what you are doing sat there, and, of course, be intrigued thanks to their irrepressible desire for those chocolates just sat there.”

This was some of the first advice I had regarding work experience and internships. The bold ‘Don’t-Hold-Back’ approach to get you through the door and into the chairs upstairs. It is one of many methods often advised for all young graduates and students pursuing any number of given career paths: send endless emails, update your LinkedIn profile, and shamelessly tweet away at important professionals until they notice you. As long as by your early 20s, you can boast a plethora of experience in the industry, an unrivalled portfolio of work and relevant employment.

The importance of experience and internships should never be doubted. Nowadays, any job application is underlined with phrases like ‘must have relevant work experience’, or ‘must demonstrate a working knowledge of the field’, or ‘must be able to provide examples of previous employment in this area.’

The myriad of means by which this same vague and crippling statement is recycled and reused is a seemingly virtual slap in the face, even to those with previous background in their chosen area.

The High Fliers’ graduate job survey reinforces this stigma, announcing that the modern graduate stands ‘little chance’ of success without this work experience.

Yet is this prerequisite a restricting and increasingly unfair method to assess applicants? A little over two decades ago, the very idea of work experience was practically unheard of, and now it is ubiquitous on the CVs and cover letters of the recently graduated.

In the same manner that a degree has fast become no real indication of whether the candidate is suitable for employment, could the endless amounts or experience really be a similar mirage, that needs to be culled? Employers are increasingly faced with shiny internships that scream ‘dedication and determination’. Yet for all the bolstering experience provides on a CV, it is not necessarily an indication of how one would fit permanently into a team.

Overcoming this new crisis is something that should be tackled. Of course, it would mean that other valid arguments against work experience – such as the limits of working for free restricting access, and the increasingly competitive nature meaning there are fewer chances for such work – would be vindicated. But the real measure would be to realign the work experience balance, and reintroduced other focuses, prominent before the mid-90s.

Part time jobs and student employment should be regarded just as beneficial as direct involvement in a chosen area for a limited period of time. The skills and competencies gained from these activities are often a more direct indication of the long term ways a person works in a team and reacts to different situations – like the time I accidentally managed to spill a new bottle of milk over a customer for whom I was making a coffee.

Customer service, tactful dealings with difficult or awkward customers and initiative all come to the forefront in a permanent job, where one’s own direction, business skill and awareness of the area come into play, independent of the ‘experience’ umbrella. These candidates have seen first-hand how to operate a business, integrate fully into a team and deal with customer complaints or queries that leaves them better equipped to handle unusual situations in the future.

Of course, experience in your own area of interest is vital, and should remain important in the application process. But now that companies are inundated with almost comparable experiences as well as similar degrees, other practical experience needs to be reinstated as an essential recruitment tool.

Not that I will deny how far a box of chocolates can get you in breaking the ice with a prospective employer.

A Greek Tragedy.

Shops looted, buildings blazing, a city in panic, mobs raging.

The scene could be London last August, or any major city with subsurface tensions. This is Athens, where friction has given way to violent protests amidst the latest economic deals from Brussels.

Despite the promise of an election in April, the Greek people are none the more encouraged to retain faith that their money is safe. There has been a rush on banks and cases of citizens sending money to accounts abroad. The economic crisis could make or break underneath the shadow of the acropolis, once a symbol of Greek might and myth.

Now, the dreamy myth is long since dispelled. The latest emergency relief package from the EU and IMF is projected to offer an injection of approximately €130 billion, should they receive proof that Greece is implementing its latest austerity measures.

However, the unrest and winter of discontent only breeds malaise amongst the Greek government. On Saturday night, parliament may have voted in favour of new spending cuts, but with almost 50 deputies rebelling, battle lines had clearly been drawn on an epic scale.

If the deal is not closed however, Greece could default as early as next March.

Therefore, the balance of power rests on the foreign leaders wanting a promise of austerity measures versus the Greek electorate, who resent the interference from the West and are seeing their country’s economy downsizing for the fifth year in a row.

In this second programme of cuts, ministers in Athens have pledged to slashing 15,000 public-sector jobs as part of a longer-term strategy to get rid of 150,000 civil servants. In addition, there have been moves to reduce the minimum wage level by an overwhelming 20%, whilst also altering the labour laws to ensure easier staff dismissal.

None of this is good news for the populous at large. Greek is already one of the poorest EU countries, with a low GDP per capita, and their borrowing has spiralled out of control, despite being burdened with a set of sweeping cuts last year.

If Greece were to heed to calls for the return of its Euro predecessor, the drachma, then there were be further turmoil across Europe, as funds pumped into the economy were annexed and other countries were made to subsidise the lost revenue. In addition, there would be mass movement of Greek Euros abroad, so as the people could capitalise on falling trade values and earn more money.

When concerns first started in 2009, Greece was burdened with debt amounting to 113% of GDP - nearly double the eurozone limit of 60%. Ratings agencies started to downgrade Greek bank and government debt and this has only led to stifled growth and the increase in debt. But how had EU regulations not picked up on the expenditure that saw such huge waste of resources?

The possibility is that Greece could be forced to leave the Eurozone so as there is not a continual stream of lost wealth. But whilst this might only disrupt Europe for a little while, the impact on Greece would ensure that it was hampered by debt well into the latter half of this century, with little consumer trust, economic growth, or trading partners.

The outlook is bleak then. With an uncertainty as to whether the Greek can meet Eurozone demands, public backlash and a potential run on more financial institutions, the recovery is far from certain. There are those who belief that another loan from Europe just kicks the inevitable further down the path and that reductions in deficit by 2020 are unrealistic.

Certainly, the play before the Acropolis today is a Greek tragedy.