Editorial: Pitt should focus more on co-ops, less on internships

With other schools expanding co-op programs beyond engineering, Pitt should consider doing the same.This year, Pitt officials got to pat themselves on the back for being ranked No. 19 on the Princeton Review’s first list examining university career services programs.But hopefully before they popped the champagne, they took a look at No. 1 on the list, Northeastern University.

The Boston-area college tops the list for one primary reason: it’s nationally renowned co-op program. One of the oldest in the nation, the program offers many eligible students — including those in nontechnical majors — resources and advising to find pregraduation work opportunities.

Co-ops, only formally available for Pitt students currently enrolled in the Swanson School of Engineering, differ from internships because companies work more closely with school officials to match student skills to company needs. By guaranteeing students work for at least one year, rotating academic semesters with a semester at work, companies have a greater incentive to actually train co-op participants, and students have a greater incentive to actually work.

Oh, and co-ops typically pay.

Northeastern, by actively searching for companies who want even nontechnical majors through its large program, gives their students these opportunities. These may not be dream jobs, and they may not be completely related to a student’s actual major — there are no co-ops for reading Milton — but with this program, even an English major has the same in-college opportunities as an engineer, or at least to an extent.

And while Northeastern leads the way, it is not alone; other schools like Drexel University and Rochester Institute of Technology have co-op programs for nontechnical majors too. At Drexel, even students in the School of Arts and Sciences average just over $14,000 for six months of co-op work, exactly $14,000 more than earned at an unpaid internship.

And with more integration between the curriculum and work, students benefit more. Megan Pollin, a junior and Film Studies major at Drexel, said the school “prepared [the students] very well” for their co-ops, a less likely occurance when an employer doesn’t coordinate so closely with the school.

With co-ops appearing more enticing than internships, we wonder why Pitt Career Services has decided to make an internship for every student its primary goal.

Yes, it is a “promising start,” as we ourselves mentioned in an editorial in September. More efforts are better than fewer efforts, especially in helping graduates find jobs. But if the program only propagates the payless, mutually unbeneficial internship relationship existing today, it would be better for everyone if Pitt started the long, hard process of expanding co-ops to arts and sciences majors.

We say long and hard because schools with exceptional programs have typically been developing relationships with employers for nearly 100 years. Northeastern started its program in 1906; Drexel started its in 1919.

If the University of Pittsburgh started a larger co-op program, it would likely only apply to a few students initially. Large, headline-grabbing proclamations like “Pitt to Guarantee Every Undergraduate the Opportunity of an Internship” would be impossible.

But ultimately, it would be more fruitful for students and for a school administration constantly looking for ways to trumpet its success. It is better to start a good small program than to start a useless large program.

That is why, even if only 10 students could be accepted in its inaugural year, a co-op program — complete with departmental support and updated curricula to reflect the possibility of rotating academic and professional status — would be a better way to prepare Pitt students for the job market than the current internship program.