The road not promoted

Not to be that senior writing about the job search, but I’m a senior writing about the job search. I know that reflecting upon the seemingly limited scope of career opportunities post-Duke and how that interplays with Duke’s mission is not a novel use of this space. Year after year, we see juniors and seniors funneled into the private, for-profit sector in aggressive and effective recruitment pushes, and year after year we read echoes of the same Chronicle columns lamenting that fact. However, where many columnists appear to subtly (or explicitly) apologize for criticizing these career paths or Duke in general, I want to take an active stance that Duke fails to cultivate a space in which students can pursue creative, diverse, ethical careers, and that this is not only problematic but also intentional.

Why is that so many of my peers, peers who have passion and ideas and love for learning, do not have the intellectual tools to identify a position after college that would capture those ideals? I refuse to believe that those pursuits do not exist, considering we can identify people doing good work around the world who helped give us those passions and ideas in the first place. Instead, I think that structures and institutions at Duke limit our ability to be creative, take risks and diverge from a powerful streamline when it comes to life after Duke.

By not actively and intentionally framing alternatives to traditional career tracks (such as consulting, finance, law and medicine) as accessible and attractive, Duke sanctions the status quo. We live on a campus that allows itself to be literally branded by companies like Accenture. The “normal” career fair featured dozens more employers than the non-profit and government career fair that happened last week. Whereas the former was held in the large, open gymnasium space in Wilson, the latter was crowded into the main floor of the Bryan Center, with some employers tucked away in a corner by the restrooms. While I understand that it does not make sense for many non-profits to send representatives to a Duke career fair in October—based on budget and on hiring timeline—the repeated discrepancy at these Duke-sponsored events makes a statement about where the university believes its students should work when they graduate.

As was the case with this past Thursday’s fair, non-profit and government opportunities are most frequently presented as one-year or two-year fellowships or internship positions. Some are paid; some are not. Granted, temporary fellowships—in both the non-profit and for-profit sectors—can be an excellent way for people to gain experience and explore not only career options but also various intellectual pursuits, geographic locations and their own personal ideology. Indeed, I am exploring some of these opportunities. However, when only internships and fellowships are presented for students interested in non-profit careers, when non-profits are most often in the forefront for summer service gigs like DukeEngage, I have to wonder if this is a suggestion that these pathways are temporary and transitional rather than permanent. It cannot be that we are unprepared for permanent, full-time positions, since we are constantly enlisted for the same in private sector positions like banking, tech and consulting. Again, it cannot be that those positions simply do not exist, because I know there are people around the world who pursued fulfilling, permanent positions in public service right out of college.

I can only offer personal theories on why this institutional problem exists; none of them come even close to capturing the root of it because it has more to do with the system in which we live than the university we attend, and none can be fully articulated in the space of this column. That said, Duke does have a stake in graduating students who will go on to get a “return on investment” on their education in the traditional sense: to earn high salaries and give back generously to Duke so that Duke can continue to provide highly sought-after educations to future students. I hope that the fact that there are plenty of members of the Duke community—alumni, faculty, current students, and more—who are indeed making creative and noble contributions with their pursuits, or the fact that many other colleges and universities have the same problem as Duke, does not tempt students to excuse our alma mater for the environment it creates for students.

All that said, I do not believe that students who recognize that certain career choices are problematic—perpetuating existing power dynamics and the model of profits over people and planet—and pursue them anyways are without responsibility. Students who recognize this and still pursue these job offers certainly can make a variety of justifications and qualifications, and they may be rational (paying off student loans, for example), but these choices have ethical implications irrespective of intention. Of students who either do not recognize the problematic nature of these companies or do not care, I must question if this is a failing of Duke’s overall education and business model by not challenging the community to think critically about the status quo. There are deep-seated structures that siphon students in certain directions; these structures are part of a larger institution and they are reflected at Duke and within ourselves. The decisions we make determine if we are complicit or resistant.

Rachel Weber is a Trinity senior. Her column runs on alternate Wednesdays.