I spent the last day with the old trainee from Toyo. He was the first trainee Toyo ever got. Toyo obviously took another one. The first trainee was named Philip. He's from the UK/Scotland. He was not an AIESECer. We went to a famous temple in Kyoto. I ended the trip talking with him about his experiences about AIESEC. He is the guy our new model is trying to incorporate. He was the guy that wanted to get involved with AIESEC, but due to AIESEC's culture, he never got the chance. His vision is very much aligned with AIESEC's and yet he doesn't even know it. He doesn't even know AIESEC's vision. pretty sad. I would have told him, but I was more interested in his experiences. Listening was more than enough for me. He still likes AIESEC and he said he would support a trainee in his current company. It was funny to me, but a lot of things that I have said and Trent and many other AIESECers have said about trainees not wanting to just be a number, he said. It was like word for word. And he's never had any discussion about this with any AIESECer before today.
This still doesn't make me want common induction. Just the option to become a member, no matter what age. Again, he said the biggest problem wasn't the option, but the culture of AIESEC. It was too elitist. I know Madison has always said we never wanted to be this way, but it is hard. You want to be the best you can be and only allow the most qualified people in, but at the same time you want everyone to feel like they could be that person if they tried hard enough. It's also hard because we spend so much time together it feels like a family and sometimes outsiders don't understand this.
For some reason, I think AIESECers think AIESECers are somehow better than other people. That we have gone through more, or that we have more experience than others or are more equiped than others. For example, when I told Kobe I was AIESECer, everyone got really excited. Why should it matter whether I am AIESECer or not? They went out of there way a lot of times to meet with me. I thought this was very good on their LCs part, but Phil said it was almost the exact opposite for him. It was like he had to prove to AIESECers that he was worth the time. I guess that was the biggest problem for me with the whole calling of SNs members. I didn't feel it changed the way SNs thought, or the quality of SNs, just the title. To me, no problem is fixed by calling it a different name. But to some, name is a lot. Maybe trainees should be AIESECers. I know Phil would feel a lot more apart of AIESEC if he was called an AIESECer rather than just a person that went through the AIESEC exchange process. But somehow I still don't feel this would have truly changed his feelings. Again, it would be more of just a title that doesn't fit him or his experiences. Bigger changes are needed.
