It was a familiar scene, almost out of a Harvard viewbook. As several students gathered for dinner, the heated current events debate eventually segued into a mild-mannered discussion of future career paths. Although each of the students talked the talk of passionate concern for some aspect of public policy, not one had any desire to walk the walk of a career in the public sector. "The money in the public sector is nonexistent," said one. "Government is defined by mediocrity," expressed another. "Government is too corrupt and too bureaucratic anyway," they all chorused.

Make no mistake about it: This was not just some isolated Cambridge moment. Increasing waves of graduates thundering forth from America's best campuses are steering clear of careers in public service. And nowhere is a change in sight.

A report on the class of 1994 by the Office of Career Services (OCS), which surveys graduating Harvard seniors, showed that interest in eventual (longterm) careers in government and politics was at its lowest level since 1982. As far as immediate employment was concerned, 1994 jobs in government were at the nadir of the five year period (1990-1994) tracked by the study. Student interest in eventual careers in business, conversely, was at the highest level since 1989. Furthermore, business as both an eventual and immediate employment choice increased 2.4 percent and 3.1 percent between 1993 and 1994, respectively--by far, the largest increase out of any career category. And although data on the class of 1995 is not yet available, there is no reason to think that this trend has reversed.

Although working in government is by no means the litmus test of a concerned citizen, a loss of interest in directly serving the nation is problematic. As the quality of individuals serving the government declines and more dissatisfaction with government results, increasing numbers of talented people become turned off to working in the public sector. While many in Washington focus on reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, few look to improve efficiency and effectiveness by attracting the nation's top minds. This movement away from public service threatens to upset the critical balance of power between the public and private sectors.

In order to reinvigorate interest in the public sector, we need to start by assessing the major disincentives to government service. According to Dana Curtis, the counselor for government careers at OCS, the perceived mediocrity of government, as well as concerns about career advancement based upon merit, are two major reasons many students shy away from public service. In addition, the high visibility and persuasiveness of businesses which engage in the on-campus recruiting process, Curtis said, sways many students at schools like Harvard toward the private sector. While consulting, investing banking, and other types of firms have put a premium on aggressively pursuing the brightest emerging minds from the nation's top colleges, the public sector has not paralleled this effort.

"Consulting and investment banking seem so big to students even though they are a relatively small part of the opportunities available," emphasized Curtis. "Because their recruiters come to campus, many students go for these firms by default. The opportunities seem so immediate, and its more difficult and time-consuming to find out about and apply for other types of jobs."

Other administrators, such as Kennedy School of Government Dean Joesph Nye, point towards the financial incentives of the private sector, combined with the shrinking size of governmental budgets and bureaucracies--inevitably turning many talented individuals, often with substantial loans to repay, away from public service.

"Government is downsizing, and this has an effect on the quality of young people who would like to enter public service," said Nye. "When you can start out making $70,000 in the private sector, but only $30,000 in the public sector, there is a severe economic penalty for choosing government."

In addition to the immediate economic hardship, the ongoing liposuction in the nation's capital discourages would-be public servants in other ways. By taking a public sector job, many believe that they would be choosing a career option with far less job security, and without the rewards and incentives to make such a risk worthwhile.

In this so-called age of pessimism, people are doubters--especially when it comes to the ability of government to create positive change. "How can you be excited?" they ask. "Isn't this generation destined to be the first to actually have a lower standard of living than the previous one? Isn't this generation the one plagued by violence and crime, the AIDS epidemic, environmental destruction, and government corruption and waste?" When such pessimism infuses the American ethos, citizens lose faith in the ability of government to find solutions, and top college graduates lose the incentives to bear lesser financial rewards when attempting to make a significant difference in the public welfare.

In order to reverse the trend of declining interest in public service, new incentives must be created to attract the interest of the nation's best college graduates. The first step is to rethink the mechanism for attracting students to government. To get more of the best minds interested in public service, additional steps need to be taken beyond traditional internship programs. By following the lead of firms engaged in on-campus recruiting, the public sector must become more aggressive in locating and attracting top talent. Harvard career fairs should not become solely an investment banking, finance, and consulting showplace. New York firms should not have a monopoly on the recruitment of America's best.

New financial incentives must also be created, and existing career advancement benefits must be emphasized to a greater extent. Under Nye's leadership, for instance, the Kennedy School is looking to create more fellowships which would help bridge the financial gap between the public and private sector. Under such a plan, Nye said, graduates who choose to go directly into public service would receive a financial stipend to help compensate for their lower salary. An important comparative advantage of the public sector over the corporate world is the potential for greater responsibility immediately after graduation.

"I've heard that for many top students, a job in government has been a really great experience. The corporate environment often puts you in a box, doing work you really don't want to do," OCS Director William Wright-Swadel commented. "A government lawyer, for instance, within months of graduation can get top cases, while in a firm, the same people would only be doing research for the same cases. Work in government often is an experience with a really intense, rewarding learning curve."

And last, in order to combat widespread pessimism, we need to start emphasizing the progress being made, as well as the great potential of government service to create additional national prosperity. Rather than a panorama of problems, a vista of promise would thus await. The world has changed in many positive ways over the past two decades: computer technology entered the home, and rapid telecommunications became a part of our lives; the Cold War died, while in many countries democracy was born. Developments in medicine, genetics, agriculture, and physics of the past two decades are continuing to revolutionize our lifestyles.

A special effort needs to be made to emphasize the unique possibilities of public service, which go far beyond any financial considerations. Government service is unique because of its "ripple effect." Like a drop of water in pond, infinitely magnified by the outward rings of ripples, government offers the opportunity to empower others who will, in turn, make great contributions on their own. Government offers the chance to confront our most challenging national problems, and use these as opportunities to help improve lives. In this way, through government service, individual ability, training and potential can be leveraged to make significant contributions to local regions, states the entire nation and even the world.

Even if some inclined students decide not to enter the public sector immediately, their increased exposure to public-service options will better prepare them to recognize opportunities that cross over the boundaries of the public, private and non-profit sectors of the economy.

By making each of these key changes in how we approach the promotion of public service government will assume a higher place on the meritocracy hierarchy. If the primary goal of America's top graduates is to make money, then the best students will gravitate towards the higher rewards of the private sector, while less-capable individuals will be channeled into careers in government service. On the other hand, if we can restructure perceptions and incentives about public service, the government workforce will not lose its fair share of talented graduates to the private sector.

Since the early days of the Republic, America has been a seafaring nation. The powerful rigging of our Constitutional ideals have always been held aloft by the mast and spars of a concerned, active citizenry. This has been exemplified by the stout framework of a calling to public service, a concern for the public good and a charitable spirit of volunteerism. But no matter how seaworthy the craft, how adept the captain, or how steady the wind, without this structural integrity, even a great ship of state will eventually become paralyzed. Because today's concerned students are indeed stakeholders in the American Dream, they cannot afford to ignore the call topside--to stand their watch and serve their fellow citizens by taking their turn at the wheel.