1.7: Through the eyes of others- Educators

Educational institutions informing this writing consisted of two large universities with culinary arts student populations greater than 600; two medium sized universities with student culinary enrollments of 350 or more; and one small university with a culinary student population of 200. The study revealed close similarities between both large culinary programs and one medium-sized program. More dramatic differences surfaced between those aforementioned institutions and the additional medium-size and smaller university Culinary Arts programs involved in the study. The size of the educational institution, the number of students enrolled in the program, the number internship facilitators available to assess the students’ qualifications, provide individualized guidance, and the program facilitators ability to mesh student needs and site expectations appeared to depict the most widely used elements in the internship site selection process. Institutional involvement for the two large and one of the medium culinary programs involved in the study included such factors as the concern for goodness of fit, a correlation of student interests and site, and the students’ level of skill.

Why do sites participate? All institutions indicated that sites became involved in the internship process through cultivation and association with faculty, involvement with the institution in various ways, selected by students as operations of interest, which would also include geographic location, or by the request of a culinary entity for inclusion in the internship program. All institutions indicated that most sites engage in these programs to develop a talent pool for future hiring needs, immediate labor, and that they generally paid these interns less than a trained employee. As stated by one institution facilitator, “the sites that are near the university, of course, are interested in just developing their labor force. That’s an easy thing.”

Other facilitators provided a more in-depth perspective. “Many of the chefs working today are products of culinary schools and they remember when they had to do their internship. I have to tell you that it’s only been a few people (the facilitator would not divulge names), and I’ll tell you what kind of people they are. They are chefs that are classically European trained (a particularly brutal apprenticeship process by today's educational standards more resembling a slave and master relationship) and there are two of them in particular, that I would never send a student to them again because of the treatment that past students received. They look at students as nothing more than cheap labor and have no stake in their education. But for the most part, more of the current chefs, especially the ones in hotels, and certainly the ones that have a certain standard of excellence, and those that were company trained remember their culinary school days and also they know that it’s important to give back to the industry and to further along young culinarians.

Involvement/Commitment

Some institutions use a systematic approach. The two large institutions, with enrollment of six hundred students or more, and one medium culinary program with an enrollment of three hundred fifty students utilized a more formalized and systematic approach to the site selection process. Students typically began to engage in the internship selection process five to six months in advance to allow for advising and preparation. Some programs utilized relatively similar elements deemed as essential eligibility criteria based factors such as the students’ grade point average, number of completed college credit hours, and readiness. The process typically involved the following steps: students were required to submit an application, resume, and complete an interview with one of the large institution’s three full-time internship facilitators, or the medium-sized program's two facilitators. Based on guidance and advice from the facilitator, students were expected to research and secure a host site from an approved list of sites previously accepting interns maintained by the institution provided to them, or another site not listed that must meet the institutions requirements. The internship facilitator reviews the host company information and job description, and ensures relevance to students’ program of study before approving the internship site operation. As indicated by these facilitators, “the primary consideration involves a match of the student’s ability and skill set to the site in terms of difficulty and the employers’ expectations.” Another facilitator indicated the need for students’ to consider and focus on long-term objectives. “We encourage students to work at sites that will allow them to grow. Their choice should fit within their skill set in order to become a better candidate for other jobs.” This is an ongoing theme discussed with students’ by professors, stressed when they seek advice, at internship seminars, and during site selection discussions with internship facilitators.” Thus, the selection process functions with certain regimented guidelines that exist within the structure of the Institution.

Students make internship site selections. One medium-sized culinary program, with 350 students, operate at the other end of the spectrum placing the burden of internship selection squarely on the shoulders of the students’ with little to no formal assistance from the institution. While some guidance is provided, direct assistance in securing the site is not provided. “We believe that the research and selection process should be conducted solely by the student. This more closely resembles the actual conditions of engaging in the ‘job hunt’ most will face upon graduation to it is our policy to not negotiate internships for our students.” Again, the students bear the responsibility of learning method.

While other institutions represent another extreme by simply appointing internships to interns who have no involvement in the selection process, and little say in where the internship will occur, more moderate institutions straddle this spectrum through the incorporation of both the elements of larger institutions, and those institutions placing the selection responsibility on the student.

Student should have a philosophical connection with the site. One smaller culinary program participating in the study takes another approach based on a different, more student-centered, way of thinking - students should have a vested interest in where they will perform the internship. “We want them to be in a place that has a connection with their philosophy of food, or with the chef, the cuisine, and so forth. We guide them as much as possible, but it’s my contention that the initial step in selecting an intern site begins with soul-searching on the part of the student to consider their strengths and weaknesses, do their site homework, and make the initial contact with the site.” Of course, the obvious weakness to this approach is the students' ability to accurately evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and to understand what attributes make sites a good choice or not despite their sharing a similar philosophy for food.

The importance of students having career objectives. The importance of students having focused career objectives was stressed by all culinary programs involved in the study. One facilitator suggested that students take their site assessment beyond verbal interaction. “They should go and ‘stage’ [work for free] for one shift to get some sense of the rhythm of the kitchen and the way it operates. After the shift they can get together with the chef and discuss the situation. If they are not comfortable, they can say no and move on to another location. This is particularly important for senior internships because if they have done their homework and pick correctly, that internship evolves into their first job.” Facilitators stress the importance of having a chef that has an interest in their education, will mentor them, supervise them correctly, and evaluate them frequently. Most of these facilitators felt that these elements could not be accurately assessed by the student during a brief interview. The interaction had to be deeper for the student to accurate gauge the site’s intentions.

Educational facilitators also expect student commitment. The ‘stage’ [audition] is highly suggested for another important reason – commitment. “Once they’ve told me they’ve selected a site, then that’s it, they’re committed. One of the things we stress is living up to your word. There is no calling us and saying this is not what I thought it would be, or I’m not really interested in the work I’m doing. Unless the student is in harm’s way, the commitment must be honored. If they leave the site, they fail the course.” These facilitators further indicated that most students who perform stages seldom faced the forms of regret that would warrant departure from the site.

Most institutions further cited that “most internship sites were chosen or determined by word of mouth. Students are networking with prior students who have successfully completed an internship and getting satisfactory feedback on certain properties that may interest those students. Students are required to research possible internship sites, but generally they take the recommendations from fellow students.” These educational facilitators also stressed that students should look at an internship site to gain work-related experience that employers’ value, strengthen opportunities for jobs after graduation, and provide excellent resume builders. Thus, students required to participate in two internships were advised to carefully select an initial site that would provide the skills and overall preparation needed to excel at a more advance entity for their second experience. Thus students in programs requiring only one experiential work encounter, typically the program requirement for larger institutions, faced the additional burden of negotiating and excelling during only one real world encounter. This would also account for large institutions adopting more formalized and regiments program guidelines.

Higher Education Mandates

Site acceptability and institutional expectations. When asked what factors determine the suitability of a site for inclusion in the internship process, most educational facilitators responded that: “the host company agrees to respect the program start and completion dates set by the university and the ability to accommodate the student for the prescribed number of working hours." This was the initial response of all institutions interviewed. One large and one of the medium institutions cited an additional caveat “The host company agrees to allow a University representative to telephone and, or, visit the host company to confirm the student’s employment, discuss the student’s work performance with their supervisor, as well as to evaluate the educational value and quality of the internship experience at the site.”

Education facilitators also commit to students. The most structured and formalized internship site expectations surfaced during my interview with one large public institution where internship site facilitators were expected to assist in making the student an integral part of the host organization and provide a meaningful educational experience with supportive guidance and supervision. The work experience should provide an opportunity for the student to gain firsthand insight into the practical aspect of the organization’s operation by observation and participation. Further, it should provide a variety of practical learning experiences in a scheduled rotation, or in a specific department relative to the student’s field of study. Those experiences should also incorporate measurable, productive, relevant, skills and activities that match the real-world tasks of professionals in the industry. The internship sites should agree to provide regular and timely input and feedback to the intern, through two performance evaluations occurring midway and at the conclusion of the experience. The student’s supervisor/mentor at the site must be available to discuss the following with the student: individual internship goals and objectives, their project topic or thesis, job expectations regarding level of performance, and specific information relating to the preparation of the academic component. The site facilitator must also agree to communicate periodically with the educational facilitator regarding the individual student’s personal and professional development. The site should also provide feedback to the educational facilitator regarding the overall internship experience such as the student preparedness, recommendations or special considerations for future placements, and input for the program’s development. While these elements are well-designed deliverables, this educational facilitator also stated the difficulty in assessing whether or not they were understood by all internship site facilitators or adequately assess during a student's evaluation process at the end of the internship due to the large student to facilitator ratio. Other less stringent evaluation schemes surfaced during the course of the study.

One medium culinary program and the small program also expected timely student feedback, possibly midway but more often in the form of a formal final evaluation. The sites availability for phone conversations regarding the students’ progress, as well as more pragmatic site expectations was the norm. “We point out to them [site facilitators] that we expect the student to do a certain amount of the ‘grunge’ work, but we would also like the Chef to consider spending time with the intern, and giving they a fair round of the kitchen and we usually get good cooperation with that. The ones that don’t, quite frankly, I don’t send anybody else to them. So hopefully they will give them a fair round and an insight into what the chef has to do in the realm of human resources, having to hire people, what they do toward costing and keeping their labor and food cost down. How do they order, and what kind of system do they have? Is it a manual or computerized system? The essence of the internship is for the student to go in there and then to come back and tell me, in their portfolios, everything they possibly can about that restaurant – how they market themselves, what type of management styles do they have, how was the respect level in the kitchen, was it friendly place, was it a hostile environment, you know, those kinds of things.

Maintaining site relationships. Most institutions indicated the importance of constant communication with sites to build strong recruiting relationships for internships and beyond. Institutions felt that a majority of these entities want to develop a talent pool for future hiring needs thus they focus more on the symbolic capital possessed by those students who can best represent the institution. As such, “the institution feels compelled to send students who display a greater than average chance of successfully completing the internship experience where it is mutually and financially beneficial to both the site and the student.”

One large institution internship facilitator voiced a more program-centered perspective regarding the student’s evaluation driving the linkage between institution and site. “I don’t think site relationships are difficult at all. I look at those relationships as sort of a barometer as to whether or not we are doing our job. The sites will tell us what the student has learned and what their skill sets are at that point. The most common negative point is that their knife skills need to be better. Of course, they’re students and don’t spend a lot of time in the day to day operation of a restaurant. But normally I get ninety percent good feedback on our students as far a work ethic, and as far as wanting to learn so I think those are two of the most important things that help our program stay connected with sites.”

Prescribed institutional goals. Large institutions display more regimented and structured program-centered requirements that adhere to and correlate with the academic way of thinking. “In conjunction with their supervisor, students will develop five goals or objectives by the end of their second week that they wish to accomplish during their experience. These goals will be reflected upon at the end of their experience. Beginning with week three, students will submit a topic proposal and outline for their project. Students are required to communicate with their coordinator, and/or faculty adviser at least twice throughout the term to discuss their project.

Additionally, students are evaluated by their site supervisor on their skills, personal qualities, attitude and interpersonal relations as observed during the first half of the term. Students will work on a major-specific project that displays the skills and knowledge gained during their internship experience. At the conclusion, the entire completed project is submitted to their faculty advisor for grading. Site supervisors evaluate the progress of the student’s specific skills, personal qualities, attitude and interpersonal relations over the full course of the term.”

Other institutions took a more student-centered approach which was less stringent and less structured. Student were required to engage in critical thinking but this was to be accomplished along more constructivist tenants in a more exploratory fashion such as journalizing the experience, reflecting on what was learned, what was liked and disliked, and placed in perspective in the form of a final internship report.

As expressed by several educational facilitators: “Develop employable skills! Communicate in a professional manner, and learn to solve problems as an individual and in collaboration with others. Gain confidence as a professional by journaling and reflecting throughout your experience. Learn by doing-then think about what went well and what didn’t. Think about how you could improve and act upon it. Repeat the cycle. Add knowledge and skills related to your specific discipline and /or anticipated career field. Test out your classroom learning in the industry. Display strong work ethic! Work hard, take initiative, and be a dependable employee. Connect with an industry mentor who can offer advice and help guide you in your future career planning. Learn about your organization’s culture and what they value in employees. Practice interview skills and going through the hiring process to make a good first impression. Remember, internships have the possibility of turning into job offers upon graduation. This is the opportunity for employers to give you a ‘test run’ to see how you perform.”

Institutional guidelines for students. Large institutions imposed guidelines correlated to the institutions academic standards and as such, the internship was essentially treated as an academic course of study. “Students are expected to report to their internship sites fully prepared and in professional attire every day throughout the entire term dates as identified in the academic calendar as well as the letter of acceptance. If a student has not started by the term start date, they will be dropped from the course and no longer be considered actively enrolled for that term. It is crucial that you attend every day you are scheduled for or consult with your site supervisor if you think you may be tardy or absent from a day of work. More than two absences may result in being dropped from the course, and may jeopardize academic standing and enrollment status, which may impact financial aid, veteran’s benefits and athletic eligibility.”

Student interns were equally responsible for criteria set by the internship site itself. “Most employers have specific selection and performance criteria. You must meet their criteria and pass employment tests including and company-administered drug test) in order to confirm your position at that employer site. Students terminated by the employer or who leave of their own accord are no longer considered enrolled for that term and will be dropped which could jeopardize future internship options. Other institutions were less concerned with regimentation thus the primary guidelines were left at punctuality and professionalism, and the completion of the required amount of hours prescribed by the program with less emphasis on negative ramifications. From their perspective, strict academic deadlines did not correlate with the fluid nature of the real world workplace.

The interns’ learning agenda. Who controlled what students should learn or experience during their internship varied according to the size of the institution and how they considered learning to occur. Larger institutions tended to take an active role in deciding learning goals while the medium and small institutions appeared to embrace more guided constructivist methods. Large universities cited student learning assignments and institutional assessments and the overarching structural component guiding what the student should value. Medium to smaller institutions provided input to student interns but generally felt that what interns should experience was site specific and as such, should be left up to the site. Most institutions indicated the use of pamphlets explaining what the site could expect from interns and, in some cases, the general expectations of the institution. The mean institutional response focused on student abilities leaving actual learning decisions to the negotiations between student and site. “We send a pamphlet that outlines the general skills of all of our students, and what the site can expect. It is then left up to the site to determine where that student can fit into their organization and the student to communicate their expectations to the site.”

Evaluation

Evaluation and grading criteria. All education facilitators asserted that both student interns and internship sites were aware of the evaluation process. “Yes. The students are informed well in advance of the evaluation process that both the institution and the site use to evaluate their performance. The sites are very aware and are coached on the grading procedure used and what our expectations are.” However, most facilitators responded that the site’s knowledge of what was expected from them was provided in written form. “The site receives a pamphlet guide that details expectations of the students’ skills, and what their limitations might be.” and “the sites are given forms for evaluating the interns by the institution.” Another response indicated that “We use a form that includes a rubric that covers several criteria.” Still another facilitator confidently expressed that “everything is outlined in a site preparation form describing the student’s learning objectives so the site is ‘always’ aware of those objectives.” No institution involved in the study could actually confirm the internship site facilitator's understanding of grading criteria. Interviews with internship site facilitators indicated that most relied on the students to inform them about how they should be evaluated and were unaware or unsure of the culinary program's formal grading procedure. I questioned what if the site facilitator fails to read the form, or, fails to communicate its content to the person responsible for the intern? I was assured that “the site facilitator always reads the form.” The assurance of that fact was profound, but were there concrete grounds for this belief – none were provided. Another expressed way of clarifying the evaluation process involved telephone or in-person consultations by the facilitator including both student and the site facilitator.

“Who” and “what” receives scrutiny? Some facilitator responses indicated that both the student and the site were evaluated to ensure adherence to all institutional criteria. Other responses indicated that the evaluation “only concentrates on the student.” Should student and site grading inconsistencies exist, some facilitators sought resolution by telephone conversation with the site facilitator and the student present. Other educational facilitators indicated that they were the deciding factor based on the student’s portfolio, and journal entries. All institutions provided the interns with a copy of the sites evaluation of their performance, and a final grade by the program, as well as any advice the educator felt would enhance the student’s experience and reflectively increase their learning.

Student deliverables for grading varied among institutions. Student intern deliverables varied from one institution to another. Some students were evaluated on assigned projects, creative thinking exercises conducted during the internship, and a completed essay describing the experience. Other institutions required ongoing journalizing of the experience, and a complete portfolio which included notes, pictures, problems experienced and how they were dealt with, what they felt was discovered about the entire operation, or in some cases, on the positions they were allowed to experience. The portfolio was the primary critical thinking deliverable which facilitators felt should exhibit personal growth and their inclusions were student-determined to a large extent. The physical skills of the intern, such as techniques and methods known, received the greatest attention (eighty percent) during the chef's evaluation. The interns’ social skills comprised roughly twenty percent of the evaluation. Those skills were narrowly defined in education facilitator responses.

Internship outcomes, whether positive or negative, were seen as beneficial to the student by the educational facilitators. “The student realizes that the outcomes are based on true and factual investigation. The student is also made to realize that we are in their corner.” Other education facilitator respondents saw outcomes as a gauge of student, site, and program. “In general, we are able to obtain information about the student’s performance, and the viability of the site as a continuing internship facility, along with the capability of the site in teaching our students important real-world skills. We also collate data from the internship evaluations in order to see areas where our students may be strong or weak, in order to make adjustments to the curriculum.”

Advice and Insights offered to students. All education facilitators cited the importance of researching a site of interest thoroughly and to seek and take the advice of an experienced faculty advisor. One of the most important issues stressed was to “make sure you are compatible with the expectations of the site.” Other germane advice to students was to always “apply your training and consistently maintain your work ethic and professionalism.” Most facilitators indicated that they actively coached students on writing resumes, contacting potential employers, helped with finding housing options, groomed professional behavior, and provided techniques to help students learn as much as possible prior to the internship.

Limitations on educators. All educators indicated that the internship process as a whole was less than exemplary citing student agency, site requirements, and institutional issues as contributing factors. “Personally, at this time I don’t feel that the faculty advisors are spending enough time developing a professional relationship with internship sites, and could be doing a better job at placing students according to their skills and mindset.” Another perspective expressed that their “program is limited by the internship students’ lack of knowledge. Most of the students tend to wait longer than they should before beginning the process, so there is typically a time crunch. The student also does not realize that the highly desirable internships are typically coveted by many students, and may be more competitive. We have information and try to inform our students as much as possible about internships, but ultimately, it’s up to the student to make the decisions, and follow through.”

Financial resources - public versus private institutions. The most formidable limitation faced by public institution culinary arts program facilitators involved the lack of financial resources allocated by the institution to the internship as a course of study. Traditional higher educational academic compensation has historically been centered on ‘contact hours,’ the amount of time a course instructor would spend instructing students. Thus, a lecture class meeting three hours a week equates to three credit hours of instructor contact while a three hour laboratory class is considered one hour of credit because students are conducting laboratory assignments and the instructor is not teaching while students execute those assignments. The result is a sizable disconnect between traditional higher education thought and practice as both relate to the nature of applied laboratory course work where teachable moments occur ‘mainly’ in the laboratory as instructors move from student to student to demonstrate correct improper techniques and correct execution difficulties students experience. This same long standing institutional way of thinking, extrapolates to internship course work viewed by virtually all higher education administrations as the student interacting with the site and having ‘no instructional contact’ with the educational facilitator.

In sum, educational facilitators at the three public institutions involved in the study receive no compensation for the contact they render interns during the duration of the internship. “As it stands now, I handle the internship process alone during the summer because the university does not consider an internship a “class” and therefore will not pay faculty to monitor the interns.” This also results in instructors who provide guidance, input, and assistance to students during the normal academic term having no contact with the students they have mentored during the internship experience. The Executive Director of one medium program explained what occurs when students leave the institution. “I am a twelve month employee so I take on that job [monitoring interns] myself to make sure that the students are getting the right kind of guidance at the site and to, of course, monitor their situation from a safety standpoint. It’s a difficult process in general, and I also have to grade almost two hundred portfolios when they students return.”

This director further indicated that the grading process was nothing sort of a “nightmare” due to the short amount of time between students’ portfolio submission deadlines and the last date for grade entry. The failure to enter a student’s grade began a negative chain of events. The student would receive an ‘incomplete’ grade for the course. Consequently, the ‘incomplete’ grade adversely affected the student’s financial aid status which ultimately resulted in the suspension of any financial assistance for the upcoming semester. In essence, the facilitator faced the dilemma of harming student’s ability to continue in the program or engaging in the cursory glance rather than the thorough read because of the sheer volume of portfolios to be graded. Thus in some cases, inconsistencies between student and site, or deeper issues went unnoticed.

Private institutions had greater immunity to variations in resource allocations. One large institution indicated a staff of three full-time internship facilitators for advising students and site relationship involvement and maintenance. However, given a student population of greater than six hundred students, the student to facilitator ratio was not considerably lower than the student to facilitator ratio experienced at smaller public institutions. The received responses from all institutions interviewed indicated no lack of intent to provide exemplary service to students, or interest in the students’ wellbeing for that matter. Program guidelines derived from more traditional academic ways of thinking defined the working parameters for educational facilitators. To their credit, most went beyond the limitations faced to whatever extent possible. As an exemplar, one facilitator overcame the insurmountable portfolio grading process by asking all of the program’s instructors to evenly share in grading portfolios reducing the workload for any one instructor, thus achieving a more in-depth reading of the students work. All were willing to participant to provide greater input for the student, and to help judge the quality of the sites and general internship experience. No instructor received any financial compensation for this work.

Socialization

Perceptions based on gender or ethnicity. The educational facilitator responses to issues student interns might encounter or have encountered at sites generally involved a “then versus now” response. All of the education facilitators cited no issues or incidents of racial discrimination. However, bias towards females, as corroborated by female students, did not draw a similar response. “You know, it’s not as bad as it once was, but there are some kitchens where it’s a “good ole boy” thing, in some places it’s still a man’s world in some professional kitchens.” Another facilitator recalled that “typically what I’ve seen would involve gender and that has improved over the last ten or fifteen years. The field has progressed in that regard by leaps and bounds in comparison to past years. Most facilitators believed that positive experiences continued to improve and were optimistic that the professional acceptance of females would continue to improve. “Ultimately, I believe that things were bound to change. Our student body is about at a fifty-fifty ratio of male to females and industry professionals who own or run kitchens continues to move closer to that proportion.” Thus workplace socialization, for females, still adheres, to some extent, to historical male dominated ways of thinking rather than an equality-based across-the-board mindset that acknowledges women as equals.

Gender bias is an opportunity. These facilitators also shared the opinion that gender bias, particularly toward females, provided an opportunity for female interns to show their worth and, unless forced to endure any form of extreme mistreatment, a site should not be avoided if the potential knowledge gain trumped the ideology of ‘females as inferior’ not manifested in physical or mental abuse. “We have had some of our female students that have turned those kitchens around on these issues. If I know what they are going into, I’m not going to let them go into it blind. I’m going to tell them exactly what to expect and how to prepare for that.”