Exploring online internships amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: Results from Case #1: Survey study of 11 colleges and universities

This is the fifth of eight articles in this series. Click here to go to first article in this series. If you’re searching for a remote internship, go to our search results page that lists all of the remote internships and other entry-level jobs advertised on College Recruiter and then drill down as you wish by adding your desired category, location, company, or job type.

In this section we report results from our second case study that features 9,964 responses from 11
colleges and universities that participated in our pilot National Survey of College Internships (NSCI) project.
Results are reported according to the three Internship Scorecard categories: (1) prevalence, purpose and
format, (2) program quality and (3) equitable access.

Prevalence, format and purpose

The first Internship Scorecard category pertains to some basic aspects of internship programming
including their prevalence among the study sample, their format, and then the reasons why students are
pursuing them.

Prevalence of internship participation by student and institutional characteristics

Students answered about their internship experiences (or lack thereof) during the previous 12-month
period prior to the date they took the survey (November 2020-March 2021). It is worth noting that the 12
months prior to data collection encompasses the entire COVID-19 pandemic. Results showed that 22.1%
(n=2,203) of the students in our study sample reported having taken an internship and 77.9% (n=7,761) did
not have an internship experience. These results on internship participation are similar to our 13-institution
dataset for the College Internship Study (from 2017-2019) where interns and non-interns reflect 30%
and 70% of that study sample, respectively, but these more recent data do indicate a decline in overall
internship participation.1

For this newer 11-campus dataset we asked questions about the modality of internships and results
indicate that 45.3% (n=993) of the students in our sample had taken an online internship, 47.6% (n=1,044)
had taken an in-person internship and 7.1% (n=155) had an internship that we call a “hybrid” internship as
their programs were changed from an in-person to virtual experience because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For students in a hybrid internship, they experienced both online and in-person elements of the internship,
an arrangement that will be interesting to study in the future to determine if these types of programs were
simply due to the pandemic disrupting traditional experiences or are now part of the internship landscape
(see Figure 1).

Here, we report participation in internships overall and then by modality (online, in-person and hybrid)
across key demographic (i.e., race, gender, first-generation status, international student status, income
level, employment status, and place of residence) and academic characteristics (i.e., major, GPA, and
enrollment status) (see Table 6).

For respondents from the 11 institutions in our study, differences in internship participation overall were
significantly related to students’ race, first-generation status, employment type, caregivers’ income level,
and major. Similarly, we found that participation in different types of internships (online, in-person or
a hybrid experience) were also significantly different depending on these same demographic attributes
of students with the exception of student employment status. These results highlight the fact that
participation in college internships in general, and in online internships in particular, are not equally
distributed across student demographics, and that in our sample these differences are not due to chance.

In examining gender differences in internship participation, we found that 68.6% (n=1,513) of the students
who took an internship in our study were female, and of the 962 students whose internship was online,
71.6% (n=689) were female. These differences (with male students) were not statistically significant, and it
is also important to note that the study sample was predominantly female (69.3%, n=6,907).

Next, differences in internship participation—both overall and by modality—with respect to race and
ethnicity were statistically significant at the 0.001 level. First, overall participation did vary significantly
by student race and ethnicity, with white students representing the majority of student interns. White
students were overrepresented in in-person internships in comparison to other race and ethnicity
groups, while our analysis found that Asian students were overrepresented in online internships. We
also found that first-generation students were underrepresented in internships, both with respect to
overall participation (a significant difference with continuing-generation students at the 0.001 level) or by
internship modality (at the 0.05 level).

Our analysis also found that full-time students took internships at a higher rate than their part-time peers,
but we did not detect a statistically significant difference in overall internship participation among full-time
and part-time students (i.e., this difference could be attributed to chance). Similarly, while the share of fulltime students was higher for both in-person and online intern groups than that of part-time peers, such
differences were not statistically significant.

Interestingly, student employment type was an important factor in explaining the variation in the internship
participation overall, yet not in the participation detailed by internship modality. Students who worked
full-time or part-time were substantially underrepresented in the intern group, and those who did not
work were overrepresented at the 0.001 level. In contrast, there was little statistically significant variation
in terms of the share of online/in-person/hybrid interns by their employment status. In addition, students
who had participated in internships had a considerably higher GPA at 3.6 than non-interns at 3.4 (at the
0.001 level). By internship modality, the mean GPA of online and hybrid interns was 3.6 (SD=0.4), which is
significantly higher than in-person interns at 3.5 (SD=0.5). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed
that the difference in mean GPA held for different types of internships (at the 0.001 level).

We then delved deeper into three student characteristics—that of caregivers’ income, major, and place of
residence—given their prominent role in the internship literature.

Participation in internships by caregivers’ income. Using the income categories of low-income (caregivers’
income of less than $39,999), middle-income ($40,000-$119,999), and upper-income (more than
$120,000) (Snider, 2020), we examined whether students’ participation in internships varied by their
caregivers’ income level. We found that students from an upper-income background (36.3%, n=691) were
overrepresented in the intern group, whereas interns from low-income families (24.7%, n=470) or interns
from middle-income families (39%, n=742) were underrepresented. We found these differences were
statistically significant at the 0.001 level.

With respect to online internships, the share of online interns from low-income backgrounds, at 24.2%
(n=202), was lower than the share of their peers from upper-income backgrounds (38.5%, n=322) or
middle-income backgrounds (37.3%, n=312). Interestingly, while the share of in-person interns from lowincome backgrounds (25.5%, n=23) or middle-income backgrounds (40.6%, n=373) were slightly higher
than for online interns, the share of in-person student interns from upper-income backgrounds was lower
at 33.9% (n=311). For a hybrid type, middle-income students and upper-income students accounted for
39.6% (n=55) and 40% (n=55), respectively, followed by low-income students (20.9%, n=29). We found
these differences were statistically significant at the 0.001 level. Nevertheless, these results should be
interpreted with caution given that this survey item (i.e., caregivers’ income) had a high level of missing
responses from online interns and non-interns.

Participation in internships by major. Next, we examine differences in internship participation rates (both
overall and by modality) by student majors. Due to small sample sizes for certain major groups and for
purposes of analysis, we categorized students into six major clusters: four STEM-related majors including
Biosciences, Agriculture, & Natural Resources (BAN), Engineering, Physical sciences, Math, & Computer
Science (PMC), and Health professions; non-STEM, and Business.

With respect to overall participation in internships, students majoring in Engineering (19.8%, n=435) and
Business (18.7%, n=412) were overrepresented in the overall intern labor force. In contrast, students
in Health Professions (8.2%, n=181) and BAN (10.4%, n=228) took internships at much lower rates.
Students in non-STEM and PMC accounted for 36.3% (n=799) and 6.7% (n=148) of the intern labor
force, respectively. These were statistically significant differences at the 0.001 level. For different types of
internships, we found that students in non-STEM (40%, n=397), Business (20.1%, n=200) or PMC (10.5%,
n=104) majors were overrepresented in online internships. Hybrid internships followed a similar pattern,
while in-person internships were most pursued by students in Engineering (21.7%, n=227), BAN (13.7%,
n=143), or Health Professions (12.3%, n=128). We found these differences were statistically significant at
the 0.001 level.

These results indicate that for STEM students, who are of particular interest to the National Science
Foundation, online internships were not prevalent in 2020 with the exception of students in PMC majors.
These results raise questions about viability of online experiences for students in STEM disciplines. In
contrast, engineering students have high rates of internship participation overall (regardless of modality),
while BAN and health-related majors do not, indicating different levels of participation in internships across
STEM disciplines. In interpreting these results, it is important to recognize that requirements for internships
or practicum vary across majors, which suggests that some observed differences in internship participation
may be due to programmatic and/or accreditation-related requirements.

Duration of online internships. As shown in Figure 3, approximately one in five students in our survey did
relatively short-term online internships of up to 8 weeks long, with 5.4% (n=52) having internships lasting
1-4 weeks, and 17.3% (n=167) having 5-8 week experiences. The relatively low number of students
taking very short internships, which some call “micro-internships” that can last as short as 4-40 hours,
indicates that this type of position was uncommon among the study sample. The majority of students took
internships lasting between 9-16 weeks (48.9%, n=471), which encompasses the time frame similar to a
traditional summer internship of 3-4 months.

Sector of online internships. Another important element of an internship is the sector of the employer where
the student is interning. For students in this sample, the majority of online interns did their internships with
for-profit organizations (58.4%, n=579), compared to online interns with non-profit organizations (30.8%,
n=305) or government agencies (10.9%, n=108).

Students’ reasons or purpose for taking online internships. Finally, we report the reasons that students
reported for taking an internship, which is an important component of their experience. For students
taking online internships, gaining experience in a specific career that they planned on pursuing as their
chosen profession was the most commonly reported reason for taking an internship (66.7%, n=662) with
fewer using the internship to explore different career options (26%, n=258). Some students indicated
an internship requirement for graduation as an important reason for participating in an internship (2.2%,
n=22).

Features of quality

Next, we turn to one of the most important questions regarding internships—that of their quality. While
quality can be defined in a variety of ways, here our aim is not to generate or advance a definitive account
of internship quality or efficacy, but instead to focus on several indicators that are supported by the
research literature as factors strongly related to student satisfaction and developmental outcomes. In
focusing on these indicators, we also aim to demonstrate that mere participation in an internship is no
guarantee of quality or impact, much like sitting in a lecture hall does not guarantee learning. Instead,
certain actions and conditions must be met in order for the student to be in a position to learn and grow.

Presence of learning goals for interns

Our first indicator of quality was whether students were provided with a written document that outlined
the learning goals and activities for their internship, either by their academic advisor or their internship
host organization. Much like a course syllabus, these documents tend to specify the precise goals for the
experience, how the internship will bridge academic concepts with real-world applications, expectations for the student and supervisor, and so on. For online interns, 61.1% (n=607) of students were provided with
learning goal documents, which was slightly higher than for in-person (56.5%, n=589) or for hybrid interns
(55.5%, n=86).

While these differences were not statistically significant, the fact that 40% or more interns lack a learning
goal statement from their employer and/or academic advisor is a cause for concern, as they reflect a
potentially unfocused or unintentional approach to the internship.

Nature of tasks performed by interns

Next, we turn to the nature of the work done by student interns at their internship, with
less than half of all online interns (46%, n=457) reporting that they mostly worked on their own project
(s) independently, with relatively little (or peripheral) support from a supervisor. Nearly one in three online
interns indicated having executed tasks that required high skills under close supervision (31.9%, n=316)
and one in five indicated having performed relatively low-skill tasks after being trained by their supervisor
(19.4%, n=193).

In-person interns characterized their tasks differently than online interns. For example, two in five inperson interns (40%, n=421) described their tasks demanded high skills with the guidance of their
supervisor. One in four in-person interns recognized their tasks as autonomous (25.4%, n=264) or low-skill
(25.7%, n=267). The majority of hybrid interns performed high-skill tasks with supervision, indicating they
mostly engaged in relatively high-skill tasks after being trained by their supervisor, who would then review
and approve their work (40.9%, n=63). Additional two in five hybrid interns (37.7%, n=58) described their
tasks as autonomous and one in five of them (18.2%, n=28) as low-skill tasks. Overall, job shadowing or
observing respondents’ supervisors perform tasks, was rated as least prevalent for online interns (2.7%,
n=27), in-person interns (8.6%, n=89), and hybrid interns (3.3%, n=5). We found that there were significant
differences in the type of tasks by the modality of internship (0.001 significance level).

Supervisor quality

One of the most important predictors of intern satisfaction and positive outcomes is the quality of their
supervisor (e.g., McHugh, 2017). On average, interns in our study sample reported having received a high
level of supervisor support. The mean scores of the perceived supervisor support, which captures the
degree to which a supervisor exhibits care and concern for the intern, were similar across all three groups
(on a five-point Likert scale, with 1= not at all to 5=a great deal): 4.2 for online interns (SD=0.9), in-person
interns (SD=0.9), and hybrid interns (SD=1).

Additionally, both in-person interns and hybrid interns continued to report having had a relatively
high quality of mentoring, which refers to how well a supervisor assists the intern in improving their
performance (M=3.9, SD=1.1 for in-person interns; M=3.9, SD=1 for hybrid interns). While these were
higher scores than that of online interns (M=3.8, SD=1), the gap between different intern groups was
statistically insignificant.

These results are promising for online internships, which some observers feared would be particularly weak
with respect to intern-supervisor dynamics, given the lack of being physically present at the job site, and
the camaraderie that can form in a workplace (e.g., McGregor, 2020).

Satisfaction with the internship

The majority of online interns indicated that the internship was satisfactory, including 31.2% (n=309) who were ‘extremely satisfied,’ and 38.8% (n=384) who were ‘very satisfied.’ However, in-person or hybrid interns showed higher satisfaction levels than their online peers, with 41.3% (n=430) of in-person interns and 40.7% (n=63) of hybrid interns indicating that they were ‘extremely satisfied’ and 39.6% (n=384) in-person interns and 39.4% (n=61) hybrid interns indicating that they were ‘very satisfied.’ The mean scores of the perceived internship satisfaction, which captures the degree to which a respondent was satisfied with the internship experience, were significantly different by internship modalities (on a five-point Likert scale, with 1= not at all satisfied to 5=Extremely
satisfied): 3.9 for online interns (SD=1), 4.2 for in-person interns (SD=0.9), and 4.1 for hybrid interns
(SD=0.9). In particular, a 10-point difference between online and in-person internships at the upper-levels
of satisfaction is a cause for concern.

Development of “21st Century Skills”

Overall, in-person interns indicated more often than their online or hybrid counterparts that their
internship experiences reinforced four “21st century skills:” teamwork, problem-solving skills,
communication skills, and leadership. For example, the distinctive difference between them was notable in
the area of teamwork, with 50.1% (n=524) of in-person interns reporting “Extremely often” or “Very often,”
yet only 36.9% (n=365) of online interns and 42.9% (n=64) of hybrid interns. Similar patterns emerged in
the percentage of interns indicating their internship provided opportunities to develop communication skills, problem-solving skills or leadership. One-way ANOVA results showed that mean differences were
statistically significant at the 0.05 level for the development of communication skills, and at the 0.001 level
for all other skills.

Development of a professional/social network from the internship

Another potential benefit of an internship is the development of students’ social and professional
networks, which can lead to important job tips or opportunities in their future. As the COVID-19 pandemic
disrupted the internship world in 2020, one of the casualties of in-person internships was thought to be
these networks (McGregor, 2020). Our data show that students with the hybrid internship experience
(91.6%, n=141) reported the highest rate of feeling that their internship had expanded their professional
network, followed by in-person interns (90.2%, n=935) and online interns (86.5%, n=852)—all differences
statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

Developmental value of the internship

Our final indicator of internship quality is the degree to which a student intern considers their experience
to be developmentally productive with respect to their academic and career goals. Using validated scales
from the research literature, we asked students to rate their internships on a scale from 1 to 5 regarding
how much their internship did in fact provide “developmental value” for their academic and career
aspirations.

As shown in Figure 5 below, the average academic value of an internship was 3.9 (SD=1) for in-person
interns, which is higher than online interns who rated their experience at 3.6 (SD=1) and hybrid interns
at 3.7 (SD=1). This suggests that those who experienced in-person internships felt such an opportunity
helped them to apply their course learnings to real-world situations or to identify gaps in their academic
knowledge to a greater extent than those who took online or hybrid internships.

In terms of the career developmental value of the internship, in-person interns (M=4, SD=1) and students
with a hybrid internship experience (M=4, SD=0.9) gave more favorable ratings than online interns (M=3.8,
SD=0.9). These differences for both academic and career developmental values were all statistically
significant at the 0.001 level.

Equitable access

The final component of the Internship Scorecard that we discuss is one that is rarely included in analyses,
research or datasets on college internships—that of equity and access. Given long-standing concerns
about the limited access to internships (especially unpaid positions) by low-income and/or first-generation
students, the barriers to internships faced by working students, and persistent racism and other forms of
discrimination in the workplace, these issues must be considered in any conversation about the role and
value of internships in higher education (Curiale, 2009; Hora et al., 2019a; Quillian et al., 2017).

Before reporting data on compensation, sources of information about internship opportunities, the
presence of anti-discrimination policies and student experiences with discrimination, it is important to note
that one of the core indicators in the Internship Scorecard is that of access to internships. In our survey,
students who did not take an internship are asked if they had in fact wanted to, and if so, what prevented
them from taking a position. Given that these questions are not specific to online internships, we do not
report these data in this report, but of the 7,761 students who did not take an internship, 68.2% (n=5,294)
had wanted to, with the most common obstacles being needing to work a paid job, a heavy course load,
limited opportunities and low pay (see also Hora et al., 2019a).

Compensation

One of the first indicators for equity and access is compensation, as we and other internship scholars
contend that all internships should be paid, even if technically a position complies with the legal
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and can be legally unpaid. Given the financial
challenges facing college students today, which range from food insecurity, considerable debt, or even
homelessness, compensation is essential to ensure that all students—regardless of family wealth—can
pursue an internship.

Overall, nearly three in five interns indicated that their internships were paid positions (62.3%, n=1,364).
With respect to compensation by internship modality, hybrid forms of internships had the highest rate of paid positions (71%, n=110), followed by in-person interns (65.1%, n=679) and online interns (58%,
n=575). We found a statistically different likelihood of getting paid between different intern groups (0.001
significance level). This is a troubling result, as one potential benefit of online internships is to increase
access to students who cannot afford to relocate to expensive cities, but if that position is unpaid it does
not necessarily make it more available or accessible to low-income students.

An interesting finding regarding compensation is that the average hourly wage for online interns was
$19.5. This is considerably higher than that of in-person ($15.2) or hybrid interns ($15.5). The discrepancy
in hourly compensation among paid interns was statistically significant at the 0.001 level.

Source of information about internship availability

Next, one of the ways that internships can be inaccessible to students, especially those at campuses
with limited resources for sharing internship opportunities and/or those from under-privileged and
professionally networked backgrounds, is that positions are not openly advertised. In our study sample,
more than half of all respondents (52.5%, n=1,149) indicated that they initially learned about their
internship opportunity through informal networks such as professors, families, and friends. These informal
and inter-personal sources were used by 42.9% (n=426) of online interns, 60.6% (n=631) of in-person
interns, and 59.4% (n=92) of hybrid interns, which underscores the importance and influence of personal
networks or what some call social capital.

More public and widely available and accessible sources of information used by students in our study
include public advertisements and/or forums including job boards, LinkedIn, and company websites,
which were used by 30.7% (n=671) of all students across internship types. This type of information was
also accessed by 39.5% (n=392) of online interns, 23% (n=239) of in-person interns, and 25.8% (n=40)
of students in hybrid positions. Direct recruitment by an employer for the position was the least used
approach by online interns (17%, n=169), in-person interns (15.5%, n=161), and hybrid interns (14.8%,
n=23). These differences in how students taking different types of internships learned about their positions
varied by respondents’ internship modality at the 0.001 significance level.

Language provided about anti-discrimination policies

Considering the continued prevalence of hiring and workplace discrimination in the U.S., we asked
students if their intern hosts provided an explicit statement about non-discriminatory hiring on the basis
of race, gender, sexuality, and/or disability status in the internship posting. The online interns in our study
sample reported the presence of these statements at the highest rate (59.2%, n=588), followed by hybrid
interns (54.8%, n=85) and in-person interns (52.9%, n=551). Approximately one in three respondents
were ‘not sure’ about the presence of these statements, and these differences among groups of interns
were statistically significant at the 0.01 level. While it is plausible that many students simply did not see
these statements on the original internship posting, it is incumbent upon employers (and postsecondary
institutions who share these postings) to make clear to interns that their workplace is an inclusive and
equitable environment.

Experiences of discriminatory behavior

The final indicator for equity and access pertains to direct acts of discrimination that students may
unfortunately have experienced during their internship. A relatively small percentage of respondents
indicated experiences of discriminatory behavior during the internship: 2% (n=20) for online interns, 3.7%,
(n=39) for in-person interns, and 3.2% (n=5) for interns taking a hybrid position. There was little difference
in reporting having felt discriminated against during their internship based on their race, gender, sexuality,
disability status, and/or other personal attributes. However, while these numbers are fortunately small,
ideally they would be zero and the fact that 64 students experienced discriminatory behaviors first-hand
during their internship is troubling.

Observations about 2020: COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter protests

Our final set of results for Case #1 of the 11 colleges and universities in our study, pertains to observations
made by students about two of the defining issues of 2020—the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives
Matter protests. While this study is focused on online internships, these two forces disrupted society for
most college students, and here we briefly report findings from survey items on the two topics.

Students’ experiences with COVID-19

Nine in ten respondents reported the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their career goals and plans:
94.9% (n=938) for online interns; 89.3% (n=927) for in-person interns; and 91% (n=141) for students with
a hybrid internship. Among a variety of career plans affected due to pandemic, the most widely selected
area was the negative impact on developing professional networks, with online interns reporting the
highest rate of challenges in networking with professionals at 72.2% (n=713), compared with hybrid interns
(67.1%, n=104) and in-person interns (62.9%, n=653). Another serious challenge was the loss of career
opportunities, reported by 59.9% (n=592) of online interns, 55.2% of in-person interns (n=573), and 51.6%
(n=80) of hybrid interns.

Of all of the impacts of the pandemic, surprisingly, respondents agreed the least with the statement
that they have experienced increased feelings of stress, anxiety, and/or hopelessness. These responses
in the affirmative on this impact ranging from 20% (n=31) for hybrid interns to 30.4% (n=315) for inperson interns. Students’ perceptions on the impacts of COVID-19 significantly differed by the internship
modality at the 0.05 level for the loss of career chances, at the 0.001 level for the disruption in developing
professional network, and at the 0.01 level for all other aspects.

Observations about the Black Lives Matter protests in Summer 2020

Overall, three in ten respondents across all intern groups indicated that their career goals and plans had
been influenced by the recent civil unrest and activism around systematic racism: 32% (n=307) for online
interns; 33.2% (n=338) for in-person interns; and 31.3% (n=47) for hybrid interns. One way the protests
had impacted their lives and goals was heightened anxiety or fear, with 15.9% (n=162) of in-person interns,
13.1% (n=126) of online interns, and 10.7% (n=16) of hybrid interns indicating this impact, followed by
disruptions in developing professional networks, and difficulties in navigating different career options. The
gap in the perception of the impacts among the three intern groups was significant at the 0.05 level for
the challenges related to the navigation of different career options and development of professional skills
and at the 0.01 level for the loss of career opportunity. Unfortunately, without follow-up interviews it is
not possible to discern precisely how the Black Lives Matter protests and related awareness about racism
impacted these students, which is a topic that should be explored in future research.

— This is the fifth of eight articles in this series. Click here to go to next article in this series. This series of articles is courtesy of the University of Wisconsin (Madison) Center for Research on College-Workforce Transitions (CCWT). To download the full report, go to http://ccwt.wceruw.org/research/technicalreports.html