I was reading this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/16/why-your-unpaid-internship-makes-you-less-employable/#567f5c9ec06f
In it they made this statement:
Hiring rates for those who had chosen to complete an unpaid internship (37%) were almost the same for those who had not completed any internship at all (35%). Students who had any history of a paid internship, on the other hand, were far more likely (63%) to secure employment.
I think they were using it to tell that unpaid internships are not very useful in getting a job. Is that logic correct?
I just felt that there was something wrong about that statement. I think one of the things that is wrong about the statement is that the people who got paid internships probably got it because they were skilled and was able to get hired using those same skills, not the internship. And since the unpaid and no internship hiring rate are also almost the same, internships themselves, whether paid or unpaid, are probably useless? So while they are trying to tell us that unpaid internships are useless, in reality, all internships are useless?
Or maybe there isn't enough information to be able to tell anything?
Anyway, tell me whether that statement is logically right.
Edit Based on the comments, the statement can be wrong if the data is wrong. Such that data was biased for taking one data from one industry and another data from another, where the effect of internships on getting hired is different. But when you give your answer, could you tell me if the statement can be logical even when you assume that the data is unbiased. That is, if the statement is correct and unbiased, then can we still infer that unpaid internships are useless and (only) paid internships are useful?