The Student Room Group

How much would you pay for a 4 month work placement?

Scroll to see replies

Answering OP's original question, as a few of you have digressed from, I would pay the employers the handsome fee of -£3000, this takes into account the cost of travelling, rent and food, etc.

Under no circumstances will I ever pay to do a job that won't get my name anywhere significant for not being stupid. If it was ground-breaking Nobel prize research project where I can reputation or valuable experience that can give me my money back, then it would be a different kettle of fish.

Otherwise, tell those stuck-up arses to stick their much needed £800 where the Sun doesn't shine.
Reply 21
Original post by darkfang77
Answering OP's original question, as a few of you have digressed from, I would pay the employers the handsome fee of -£3000, this takes into account the cost of travelling, rent and food, etc.

Under no circumstances will I ever pay to do a job that won't get my name anywhere significant for not being stupid. If it was ground-breaking Nobel prize research project where I can reputation or valuable experience that can give me my money back, then it would be a different kettle of fish.

Otherwise, tell those stuck-up arses to stick their much needed £800 where the Sun doesn't shine.


I never took into consideration to pay for it just wanted to know how others think about it.
Reply 22
Original post by lego
Well, that's obviously the case, but say, someone from Morgan Stanley calls you with an offer for a year long placement for £5,000. You will work on Facebook's IPO, etc. No one will ever know you paid. Would you still say no? A lot of people here say 'never', but I doubt this would be the case if they face such an offer.


No way in hell I would pay anyone 5 grand to slave away for 4590 hours (c. 90 hours per week) to do crummy powerpoint formatings and copy pasting. Thats a wage of -0.9£/hour and even 60k barely compensates for that kind of hell.

Original post by BERLO
Discussing this topic only makes sense against the backdrop of students craving for any kind of practical experience while studying. The idea to charge for an internship position probably originates from the fact that many students find it troublesome to get employed. In order to make sure they´ll have at least one internship to add to their CV after graduation some students may accept it. As long as it´s not illegal to offer internships for money why shouldn´t they try it? There are so many agents for overseas study or internship positions who are doing exactly the same. The lesson is clear: Acceptance is low unless the company is a big player.

Because its morally questionable and undermines Brunels status as a 3rd or 4th tier institution.
Reply 23
In principle, at a reputable firm it's a sound career investment. Experience at a big multinational would expand your earning potential more the cost I'd imagine.

In application, I couldn't do it. It's immoral, exploitative, and I'd resent coming into work every morning. Imagine having to tolerate condescending appraisals from senior staff, in the knowledge you're actually paying them to do so.
Reply 24
Original post by SensiDub
In principle, at a reputable firm it's a sound career investment. Experience at a big multinational would expand your earning potential more the cost I'd imagine.


Noone will give you a higher salary just because you did a short few weeks of work experience with a random firm, no matter how well known.
Not a sound investment.
Reply 25
Original post by KLL
No way in hell I would pay anyone 5 grand to slave away for 4590 hours (c. 90 hours per week) to do crummy powerpoint formatings and copy pasting. Thats a wage of -0.9£/hour and even 60k barely compensates for that kind of hell.

So, all the people who pay $150,000 for a top US MBA or £25,000-£35,000 for MSc Finance at a top UK university, to even have a chance to do this kind of work 90 hours a week for a huge pay are idiots? It's pretty much the same thing. In the MSc case you pay £25,000 and don't get paid for a year (due to studying) and have the chance to go into banking. In the imaginary scenario, you pay £5,000 and don't get paid for a year, for a much better chance to work in banking.
This, of course, is all assuming that you do want to go into investment banking. I do understand that a lot of people don't want to do this kind of work (in fact, I am one of them). All I am saying is that a lot of people, if not the majority, who are desperate to get in IB and doubt their chances, would do it in a heartbeat. In my opinion, the vast number of shady companies offering this kind of deals and courses for ridiculous prices, proves my point.

Original post by KLL
Noone will give you a higher salary just because you did a short few weeks of work experience with a random firm, no matter how well known. Not a sound investment.

Well, you won't get paid more than others for the same job just because of an internship, but the work experience certainly increases your chances to get a higher paying position.
Lol, I wouldn't pay to work

What a joke
Reply 27
Original post by lego
So, all the people who pay $150,000 for a top US MBA or £25,000-£35,000 for MSc Finance at a top UK university, to even have a chance to do this kind of work 90 hours a week for a huge pay are idiots? It's pretty much the same thing. In the MSc case you pay £25,000 and don't get paid for a year (due to studying) and have the chance to go into banking. In the imaginary scenario, you pay £5,000 and don't get paid for a year, for a much better chance to work in banking.
This, of course, is all assuming that you do want to go into investment banking. I do understand that a lot of people don't want to do this kind of work (in fact, I am one of them). All I am saying is that a lot of people, if not the majority, who are desperate to get in IB and doubt their chances, would do it in a heartbeat. In my opinion, the vast number of shady companies offering this kind of deals and courses for ridiculous prices, proves my point.


Well, you won't get paid more than others for the same job just because of an internship, but the work experience certainly increases your chances to get a higher paying position.


I wouldn't agree with this argument.

For the MBA, you are paying to get an education.
Working, you are paying someone who will make even more money out of you.
Reply 28
Paying to work, is like...

...Turning upto Tesco's dropping off milk and break, and then paying a fiver to do it.
Reply 29
Sorry, but I think you are naive. Sure people pay for the education, but they are not doing it as a means to an end, unless they are crazy rich. $150,000 in tuition and 2 years with no income is $300,000+ in opportunity cost for MBAs in top programs. You do it for increased job opportunities, increased salary potential etc. See this link:
Top 12 Motivations for Pursuing a Graduate Business Education
Increased job opportunities 70%, Increase salary potential 67%, Accelerate career path 63% are at the top of the table. Personal satisfaction and achievement is at the bottom with 54%. Granted, 16% is not such a big difference, Personal satisfaction and achievement is still the 11th most important factor.
I think it's hard to argue that 2 years as an analyst at GS or any other firm of this caliber, is a much bigger booster for 11 of the 12 listed factors than Harvard MBA. Thus, considering that in both cases you are not getting a salary, paying $10000 for the work experience versus paying $150,000 for the MBA is a not such a bad deal, as most of the people here make it sound.
Reply 30
Students are cheap labour. Although the blurb of many companies try to indicate otherwise, I have sat in meetings of blue chip companies where the solution to a low skill problem is to get a student in to do it. This is usually packaged as a "project" but the thrust of it is to solve a problem that a contractor would charge 10 times the price.

In some European countries for example they have an 800EUR job which requires no insurances or tax to be paid by the employer which is supposed to encourage employment. For periods under 3 months, no pension contributions need to be made by employer either.

So if one had a simple website or data conversion task, then it could be wrapped up as a project and obtained relatively cheaply. That is not to say the intern does not benefit in other way by association with the company and its projects, and the company does not benefit by contact with talented students, but they are paid to do a job of which they are capable. When it comes to thesis/project year the benefits for both sides increase.

In none of the scenarios should the student be expected to work for nothing and it is a very cynical employer that would exploit students in such a way.

Regarding procurement of internships for a fee, that sounds like a scam.

TBD
Reply 31
Opinions are opposed diametrically which means we can´t bring this discussion to a good end. Some could be convinced if they would know what companies take part, others would stick to their opinion no matter what company.

Personally, I don´t see a difference between paying for a position and working without salary. It just increases the amount of my debt even though some may argue it´s a matter of principle which I don´t want to deny. I would work for several months without salary only, and really only, if I could be sure someone on executive level with the right connections in this company will value my commitment. Such certainty doesn´t and will probably never exist, therefore, I wouldn´t pay for it.
Original post by KLL



Because its morally questionable and undermines Brunels status as a 3rd or 4th tier institution.


I don't think UK universities are neatly divided into tiers.

Wrong country.
Reply 33
Original post by AllisonAdorkable


I don't think UK universities are neatly divided into tiers.

Wrong country.
Yeah, maybe I'm thinking about the other ranking obsessed European country with the 4 university rankings in addition to the research assessment exercise and teaching quality assessment and the global university rankings.
Original post by KLL
Yeah, maybe I'm thinking about the other ranking obsessed European country with the 4 university rankings in addition to the research assessment exercise and teaching quality assessment and the global university rankings.


Rankings =/= tiers.

The US operates on the whole tier system. The UK doesn't.

The rankings here are far too variable for there to be an actual pecking order outside of Oxbridge, UCL, etc.
Reply 35
Presumably you're not considering a career in banking. :rolleyes:

TBD

Original post by BERLO

Personally, I don´t see a difference between paying for a position and working without salary.
Reply 36
Original post by AllisonAdorkable
Rankings =/= tiers.

The US operates on the whole tier system. The UK doesn't.

The rankings here are far too variable for there to be an actual pecking order outside of Oxbridge, UCL, etc.


So universities are not classed in Groups such as the Golden Triangle, Oxbridge, Russel Group, 1994 Group, Ex-Polys, etc. all with different perceived reputation. Clearly no pecking order at all
Reply 37
Brunel students have to pay companies to do internships? :s-smilie: Any half decent company would refuse and the ones left won't be worth paying £800 + own expenses for.
Original post by KLL
So universities are not classed in Groups such as the Golden Triangle, Oxbridge, Russel Group, 1994 Group, Ex-Polys, etc. all with different perceived reputation. Clearly no pecking order at all


No. They're not.

She mentioned that outside of UCL, Oxbridge, etc. (the 'golden triangle') there's no clear ranking.

The 1994 Group and RG are research-oriented organizations. That you think they represent some sort of 'pecking order' is quite silly when you consider the fact that quite a few 'unaffiliated' universities outrank many of the 1994/RG universities in both the national and international league tables.
Reply 39
Original post by VintageJasmine
No. They're not.

She mentioned that outside of UCL, Oxbridge, etc. (the 'golden triangle') there's no clear ranking.

The 1994 Group and RG are research-oriented organizations. That you think they represent some sort of 'pecking order' is quite silly when you consider the fact that quite a few 'unaffiliated' universities outrank many of the 1994/RG universities in both the national and international league tables.


Outside the golden triangle there is an outline of a ranking. For example, a uni like St Andrews will always be deemed better than an ex-poly. Maybe not represented exactly by research groups, but outside of the golden triangle there is a ranking.

Quick Reply

Latest