The attachment — work experience for students — is required in virtually all Kenyan universities and TVETs. In policy documents of both the government and higher education institutions, the stated purpose of attachments is to address the significant challenge of unemployment facing many young graduates by imparting them with relevant skills.
There are good grounds for this goal: the Federation of Kenyan Employers reports that many firms in the country have a hard time filling positions due to a deficit in appropriately skilled jobseekers.
But what if attachments are underdelivering on their aim? What if they are in fact a part of the problem?
One of the reasons for rethinking the attachment policy is severe access challenges. As reported elsewhere, securing attachments is an “agonising” experience for students. This characterisation is supported by interviews I conducted with recent graduates for my doctoral research. Getting an internship is difficult, time-consuming, and dispiriting for many students.
Attachments are hard to secure even though students do not typically expect any remuneration. Inevitably, students often compromise on the fit of the attachments they pursue which results in the gained experience not being meaningfully connected to their area of training.
Another strategy, relayed by reliable anecdotes, is students registering their own organisations for the sole purpose of having a formal entity they can be attached to. While it may be argued that flexibility and entrepreneurial solutions are all positive outcomes, these responses cast doubt over the pedagogical value of attachments and their effectiveness in providing relevant practical experience.
University attachment
Another reason to reconsider the university attachment is that it reproduces inequality. Unsurprisingly, whether a student is able to secure an attachment and the quality of the attachment they access (training value, income received, employer prestige, opportunities for post-graduation hiring) are highly dependent on their socioeconomic background. For students who come from well-connected families, getting suitable attachments is a smooth process. Attachments work as intended and facilitate hands-on learning for privileged students. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are not so lucky. For them “tarmacking” begins before their entry into the workforce.
Sociologists of education argue that while schools can equalise opportunity, variations created within the school system actually exacerbate inequality. The university attachment as it is currently structured inserts variation in the training received by students. Advantaged students gain meaningful experience that make them competitive jobseekers thus maintaining existing social hierarchies.
Of course, difficult and unequal access to attachments arise out of the fundamental cause of unemployment in the country: the scarcity of opportunity. According to the annual economic surveys of the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, the absolute number of waged jobs in Kenya has remained virtually unchanged in the past three decades. It is worth speculating whether the forced entry of thousands of unpaid student-workers for a few months every year contributes to this stagnation. Universities should consider alternatives to the attachment. One possibility is to introduce courses where students learn from relevant industry practitioners.
* There are important differences between how universities and TVETs carry out their internship programs. This piece focuses on universities.
Dr Mutwafy is a Postdoctoral Research Associate and Lecturer at the Carter G. Woodson Institute for African American and African Studies, University of Virginia, USA; [email protected]
