I talked with Andrew for awhile last night to explain my thoughts on the current exchange process. While there are areas for improvement, I felt that most of the "problems" we are facing are not structural ones. As Scott put, they have a lot more to do with our LC culture. I'm more of a concrete numbers guy, so I created the chart below to more accurately express my concern.
To explain, these are the actual exchange numbers for @-Madison over the past three years split into Management(MT), Technical (TT), Education (ET) and Developmental (DT) categories. The MT/DT is the ratio of Management to Developmental traineeships. The SUS/DT is the ratio of Sustainable to Developmental traineeships. @ internationally defined sustainable(i'm paraphrasing and interpreting) as all traineeships that do not hinder the financial growth of an LC. 90% of developmental traineeships are this way and the only way they are sustainable is if they are corporately funded, and even then they are only sustainable as long as the company still supports them.
@-Madison needs all four exchanges to take place. period. My concern is that the ratio of sustainable traineeships needs to stay around 2, so that the LCs can absorb the financial burden of supporting DTs. I believe that this drop in ratio is directly proportional to the ratio of graduated students to undergrad students who went on the traineeships. In order to get the better MT, TT, and ET traineeships, you need time and experience. Most undergrads don't have both, so they are forced to do DTs. Now, the culture part. The culture of our LC STRONGLY encourages members to go on an exchange. My concern is that the focus has shifted from "Go on an exchange" to "Go on an exchange NOW (while you're still in school)". Again, both undergrads and graduates need to go on @exchanges, but the vast majority have to go on sustainable traineeships. Which means, the majority either have to be graduated, or have completed their junior year. So once the culture of the LC shifts a little less towards go on one NOW and more towards plan on going on one in the future (possibly 2-3 years from now), the ratio should go back to where it belongs.
| '04 | '05 | '06 | 3 Year Total | |
| MT | 6 | 9 | 3 | 18 |
| TT | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| ET | 4 | 0 | 3 | 7 |
| DT | 4 | 5 | 8 | 17 |
| Total | 14 | 16 | 15 | 45 |
| MT/DT | 1.5 | 1.8 | 0.38 | 1.06 |
| SUS/DT | 2.5 | 2.2 | 0.88 | 1.65 |
To explain, these are the actual exchange numbers for @-Madison over the past three years split into Management(MT), Technical (TT), Education (ET) and Developmental (DT) categories. The MT/DT is the ratio of Management to Developmental traineeships. The SUS/DT is the ratio of Sustainable to Developmental traineeships. @ internationally defined sustainable(i'm paraphrasing and interpreting) as all traineeships that do not hinder the financial growth of an LC. 90% of developmental traineeships are this way and the only way they are sustainable is if they are corporately funded, and even then they are only sustainable as long as the company still supports them.
@-Madison needs all four exchanges to take place. period. My concern is that the ratio of sustainable traineeships needs to stay around 2, so that the LCs can absorb the financial burden of supporting DTs. I believe that this drop in ratio is directly proportional to the ratio of graduated students to undergrad students who went on the traineeships. In order to get the better MT, TT, and ET traineeships, you need time and experience. Most undergrads don't have both, so they are forced to do DTs. Now, the culture part. The culture of our LC STRONGLY encourages members to go on an exchange. My concern is that the focus has shifted from "Go on an exchange" to "Go on an exchange NOW (while you're still in school)". Again, both undergrads and graduates need to go on @exchanges, but the vast majority have to go on sustainable traineeships. Which means, the majority either have to be graduated, or have completed their junior year. So once the culture of the LC shifts a little less towards go on one NOW and more towards plan on going on one in the future (possibly 2-3 years from now), the ratio should go back to where it belongs.
posted by Bruhaha at 3:42 PM
6 Comments:
hmmmmmmmmmmm. what about doing both?
That's not LC culture man, thats recruitment strategy and expectations. I agree with Jenna however. I for one am a proponent of the take a year off for an @ exchange.
I think we have more people interested in doing TNs after their junior and/or after graduation than people looking to go as a youngin.
It's not culture. Look at the proportion of business students in the LC; i.e. those who would do MTs compared to those who would do DTs. In addition, business students tend to be attracted to alluring internships in New York or Chicago where they pay big and basically promise a job post-graduation. It's hard for @TNs to compare with those. Bottom line, those interested in working abroad are more the DT/ET types in IS, poli sci majors than business majors looking to do MTs.
P.S. you articulate what I was trying to say needed to shift in your exchange mentality from the past: that we recruit people to go on traineeships eventually (i.e. post-graduation) not people looking to go on one RIGHT NOW. The problem is we won't know the success of it for 2-3 years because we're still fresh into transition into the new system.
I am not seeing this change of mentality to go on an exchange later. the whole idea behind the "new" system was exactly what adam articulated. but I'm saying that in reality, it isn't happening. we have 6 people in our lc right now that just came back from summer internships. also, the people that get very involved with aiesec 2-3 years down the line will most likely be applying for mc roles here or abroad. this means those that do stick around have a choice to do a traineeship OR take their promotion.
That is awful speculative. I would wait to see what pans out.
Post a Comment
<< Home