CAMPUS CORRESPONDENCE : If IBM Recruited This Way, We’d Be Chiseling in Stone : Government: Low pay, Gramm-Rudman cuts and the Reagan bureaucracy-bashing drove the best students away. But they can be attracted back.

It is a popular view on college campuses across the country that those with ambition and credentials pursue careers in the private sector, while those with neither search for a job on the government payroll. This view is partly the result of the different financial rewards associated with the two careers. But the perception of these careers goes deeper than salaries, suggesting that in this time of fiscal restraint, when a small government will need better (and enthusiastic) employees to provide the services the country demands, the government ought to get its public relations and personnel houses in order.

The negative image of government service among students today seems neither longstanding nor inevitable. We are at least led to believe by popular lore that in the glory days of the Peace Corps, young, eager students gladly volunteered to promote the image of America abroad by helping those less fortunate. Once, not even that long ago, Americans liked their government. In other countries, such as Britain, many of the best and the brightest still enter the stiff competitions for careers in Her Majesty’s civil service.

Certainly the anti-big-government rhetoric of the Reagan years soured the student generation on government service. Who would want to work for a company whose chief operating officer mocked the very functions his employees served? President Bush has filled the shoes of his predecessor with silence, not much of a recruiting technique.

A visit to the campus placement office goes a long way toward explaining the remarkably poor opinion that thoughtful students hold of the nation’s largest employer. The most visible--and in many cases only--representatives of the federal sector are the CIA and several defense agencies. I am not opposed to national defense or the CIA, but they hardly exhaust the government’s employment opportunities. And they do not always promote an image of a kinder or gentler employer. Recruiting by various defense agencies has recently met with widespread campus protests because of the military’s discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Of course, not all blame can be placed on bad public relations and highly visible campus protests. The government also discourages applicants by paying less--considerably so. To use a personal example, I spent part of this summer working as an intern in the office of the legal adviser to the secretary of state. The office is full of talented lawyers, all of whom could earn significantly more in the private sector. For a summer employee, the federal paycheck is about one-third of what many large law firms pay their summer interns. The difference increases for full-time lawyers.

Job security also falls behind that in the private sector. No company or business could manage itself with the annual fiscal uncertainty that the Gramm-Rudman debt ceiling introduces into the government. Because the worst-case scenario for cuts in domestic programs exceeds 30% under the Gramm-Rudman ax, many federal agencies have warned their employees--secretaries, clerks, professionals--they may be facing “furloughs” (read “unpaid vacation”) over the next year that would result in a 12% pay cut.

That some choose to make the financial sacrifice of government work indicates that the well-kept secret of truly interesting careers does leak out--at least in graduate schools. But this is hardly a competent personnel policy. If we are ever going to produce a lean, efficient government, Bush should spend a little time revamping the image of the government as employer on the nation’s campuses.

There are some easy, cheap solutions that would help reverse the trend. Career opportunities outside the defense Establishment should be advertised. Even if the civil sectors of government--the Justice Department, for example--can’t afford the glitzy commercials and promotions of the military, how about a bigger investment in campus recruiters? Or, at least, some informational brochures for placement offices?

The President should regard himself as not just a political leader of government, but an executive with responsibility for the welfare of his employees. The stalled 11th-hour budget negotiations ought to bother the President not only because of the nation’s precarious financial position, but because of the insecurity and anxiety that the threatened cuts cause to millions of federal employees-- his employees--and their families.

Then there’s the tougher question of money. If outright salary increases are politically unpopular, perhaps a plan offering loan forgiveness, or extended repayments for students who graduate and commit themselves to, say, three to five years of government service would gain support. Various branches of the military already support many of their recruits through college--why can’t we develop a similar incentive for loyalty to the civil service? To be all you can be, one doesn’t always have to join the Army--but it would be nice to feel as welcome in the other branches of the government.