Talk:AIESEC/Archive 2

Comment

I've removed the most offensive sections of the article and removed the delete prod. Compared to other language versions this article isn't too bad. AIESEC is certainly a notable organisation. This article has the scourge of constantly being edited by non-wikipedian AIESEC members. This has generally degraded this article (I've been watching it for a couple of years now). It now has references but they all seem to come from primary sources (AIESEC web sites) so I have added a header to publicise this. This article certainly needs impovement, but please don't prod it for deletion. --vierstein^talk|Contrib 10:20, 18 September 2009

Deletion

I think this article needs to be deleted unless someone is able to find reliable third party sources. This article is created purely from Aiesec websites and it is biased and promotional without really explaining anything about Aiesec.

If someone is able to find a third party source then the article must explain following things:

What exactly Aiesec does.

Aiesec's objectives. Not anything vague like cooperation or world harmony.

Aiesec's stated goals and whether it is registered as non profit organization. And also can Aiesec be categorized as Non profit and non political organization since Aiesec charges fees for its services and frequently lists political leaders associated with Aiesec.

I have also heard from some former memebers of Aiesec that Aiesec is a pyramid scheme since the National and international positions held in Aiesec are paid but all other members work without pay and budgets of various committees are never shown. But I am unable to find any reliable third party source regarding such claim.

Also a criticism section describing the Advantages and disadvantages of being associated with Aiesec for students and members and other organizations should be there.

122.169.32.119 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a fruity cult to me. Timmah48 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've searched the web to-and-fro and I really can't find *any* site that isn't built by AIESEC members... I really think this article should be deleted until there is some kind of counterbalance from some third party. It's nothing more than a self-patting-in-the-back article now 186.136.109.237 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

The problem is that also I am studying English at the uni I cannot agree with its language policy. AIESEC discriminates against those who cannot or do not want to speak English. I am aware that many other international organisations do the same, but at least AIESEC claims to be tolerant and open towards other cultures. If CocaCola or McDonalds do the same they at least do not claim that they want to change the world in a positive way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.229.150 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism. In researching AIESEC for a magazine dossier, I interviewed many AIESECers and ex-AIESECers, both disgruntled and not. Disgruntled members were adamant about the brainwashing-like practices and underpaid work (or even stuff paid by themselves, like air travel and such). Current members could not pinpoint what the organization *actually does*, and all I could get were vague answers like the ones in this article. From what I could extract, it seems AIESEC "sells" rented practices to many enterprises, but:

• the young people doing the practices get really underpaid, and often have to afford costs such as housing and getting to the place of work.
• the young people working for AIESEC and doing the selling are underpaid or not paid at all, and they're usually 18-25 years old. Most of them have no experience in HR or anything so they don't seem to be really qualified for selling HR. It looks like slave work. AIESEC gets paid, they get not.
• Both seem to be satisfied by what they call the "AIESEC culture", though they can't accurately describe what it is. It seems to revolve around congresses, parties and such, that they also pay by themselves.

I believe the article should have a criticism section discussing these issues, though I find it hard to find references (but the positive aspects are underreferenced as well and seem to be written by AIESECers themselves). The members' overzealousy doesn't help either. lalolanda

Hi there, just to clear up some of the points brought up:

• What AIESEC does is basically give its members an opportunity to gain working and cultural experience through its exchange program. Now, this works on two levels: members who work for AIESEC in their own country are normally in charge of all the agenda connected with running the organization (HR, finance, selling, marketing, ...), which gives them working experience, and they draw their cultural experience from interaction with foreign exchange students/interns working for a company serviced by their local committee. The second level is the exchange program itself, where a member can go for an internship to a foreign country. Obviously, both purposes, i.e. working and cultural experience are thus served.
• Now, one has to keep in mind the origins of the organization after WWII in the 1940s to understand that at those times traveling and spending time in foreign countries was a difficult thing to do. Obviously now it isn't such a "wow" thing anymore as people have a lot of opportunities to travel and spend time in different countries. There is actually an ongoing discussion within the organization as to whether the internship program should be changed in some way due to these factors.
• The internships are underpaid: well, depends on the country and company. There are countries/companies where interns actually get substantially more than the average salary, there are countries/companies where they are at par and there are obviously countries/companies where they get less than a normal employee would. What needs to be remembered is that the main reason the internships are done is the cultural experience one gets out of spending between 2 and 18 months in a different country. Again, the origins of the organization after WWII come into play: at those times it was believed (and still is) that the best way to avoid war with other countries is simply getting to know them, getting to know their culture and understanding that there are no "enemies" in other parts of the world - many times violence stems from misunderstandings/misinterpretations rather than from other causes. Even today, in the globalizing world, knowing and understanding different cultures isn't such a bad thing. Now back to the point: there might be companies, who cannot/don't want to pay a whole lot of money to an intern, but he/she could still potentially get a very good experience out of working for the firm. In these cases, the internship will probably get opened anyway and there are always students, who don't mind getting a lower salary in return for an interesting experience. Another reason for the lower salary is that, simply, the interns are virtually all students. And while companies wouldn't normally employ people without a college degree, through AIESEC internships they are making an exception, because they recognize the added value a foreigner can bring to their company (know-how, new interesting insights, ...). Anyway, the question is, would you pay an undergraduate student the same as you would pay a bachelor or a master with 5 years of working experience you normally employ? You probably wouldn't
• Members don't get paid or are heavily underpaid. Well, the organization being a charity/foundation and non for profit, the members are indeed all volunteers. This, however, is compensated by the aforementioned laboral and cultural experience they get in return, which gives them an advantage over their peers later when they apply for jobs. It also needs to be mentioned that the membership consists virtually entirely of college students, who in general have relatively more free time and less need for a paid job than graduates.
• The organization's culture (parties, congresses, ...) is indeed very unusual and rather crazy. Again, what needs to be considered is the age of the members (18-22). These are young people, who generally like to horse around and do "crazy stuff" (like dancing a stupid dance in front of 300 people). The idea behind this is very simple: if you have an organization full of young people, who work for free, you have to try to make the experience the most enjoyable possible as a kind of a "reward" for all the potentially boring marketing/finance/HR/selling/administrative stuff I mentioned before (again, remember that AIESEC is non-for-profit, so it doesn't generate financial resources to pay bonuses to its members). If you want to call it brainwashing, help yourself, but to me it is a very benign thing. Of course, there are people who don't like this kind of "fun", (and it seems there are quite a few of them :D), but anyone is free to leave the organization with no strings attached at any time - everyone is a volunteer afterall.
• Members don't get paid, but AIESEC does. The truth is that AIESEC does get paid by companies for the mediation of most of its internships. In addition to that, local committees normally have partners, who support them financially, etc. So, where does all this money go? Here is a short list:
  • paper, phone bills, office rent, cleaning, photocopies, printing, internet bills, posters, ...
  • conferences and congresses (it is true that members have to pay a fee if they want to attend a conference/congress, but this normally isn't the full cost of the accommodation, food, travel, and trainings associated, so the fee is subsidized)
  • costs of maintaining the 20000+ user internet information system used for internship and organizational management online and with an acceptable bandwith
  • salaries of full-time members: this is an exception to the "volunteer" rule, as members on the national and international executives often do receive a modest salary to sustain themselves, as their positions might require them to interrupt their studies for the duration of the term (1 year).

PeterRet (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a member and then went on exchange on a development traineeship (volunteer work in a developing country). There are other student clubs that aren't full of so many narcisistic control freaks and there are other overseas volunteer programs that offer more meaningful and productive work. Oh and it's the best way to make pseudo friends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.160.81.4 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

I'm going to assume good faith here. You probably had a bad experience and want to ensure others do not experience what you did. However let me inform you of a few things:

• 1. Wikipedia is not a forum. Please refrain from turning it into one.
• 2. Allow me to retort: A large number of people have good experiences with AIESEC. AIESEC varies a lot between countries. While you may be right about certain members that you have been in contact with, my experience has been vastly different. Making blanket ad hominem attacks does nothing to further your position.

All the best. 121.98.144.93 (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Current and Former Executive Boards

Adding members of MC (national committee) and LC (Local Committee) executives seems inappropriate. There are 1,100 LCs and 60 MCs and (in the UK at least) most LC members serve for one or two years. I can only assume you are thinking in terms of just one national AIESEC group. Even then this would seem excessive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.78.174.71 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

the world's largest student organization

The AIESEC international website describes AISEC as the "the world's largest student organization" this claim is perhaps not correct but "the world's largest student run international organization" might be. Comparing it with IEEE which is a professional organisation with some student members is not comparable but there remain plenty of larger student run national organisations e.g. in the UK the National Union of Students has 7 million members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.78.174.71 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

History

Referring to the phrase: "In 1944, though, the neutral Scandinavian countries were still exchanging:" In 1944 there was only one neutral Scandinavian country, Sweden. This sentence implies that Czechoslovakia and Belgium (which certainly were not neutral) were part of Scandinavia. The one who wrote this may (wrongly) have referred to any of the other Nordic countries as Scandinavia. Norway and Denmark were at that time under German occupation. DoktorZ (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)