A few years ago, some employers found a way to take advantage of unsuspecting co-op students: refrain from posting job offers in the first or second rounds, and wait for the jobless students to start combing through the continuous rounds. Once in the continuous, these employers would post their “volunteer jobs” (because they were too poor to afford “real” co-op students). Fortunately, co-op has done a lot to get rid of these volunteer jobs, and this blatant mistreatment of co-op students. Nevertheless, a new trend is now emerging: highly sought after volunteer jobs that are being posted in the first round. At first glance, volunteer jobs may not seem like such a bad idea. In the best-case scenario, students get boat-loads of experience, with the chance to gain hands-on skills at prestigious organizations, working with professors who are involved in cutting-edge research. Surely, working for less (or nothing at all) can justify this amazing opportunity. Don’t be fooled by this gift-wrapping of what is really a black hole. Despite the sheer volume of skills a volunteer job may promise, in the end, a volunteer job is an excuse for free labour that favours financially secure students, does not provide as enriching a co-op experience, and propagates more volunteer job positions.
First and foremost, volunteer positions favour students who have greater financial freedom. For instance, Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) “hire” up to eight engineering students per co-op term to work in their various labs for volunteer positions. The cost of living at Harvard and MIT, including rent, is estimated to be $2,000 per month. With no financial remuneration except for their Visa, students are expected to pay this money out of pocket. As a result, these jobs are only available to students who have strong financial support. Although there are a small number of grants available to students in volunteer positions, these grants barely cover living expenses. For instance, NSERC pays only $6,000 per fiscal period. For students who have eight month co-ops (and Harvard/MIT mostly hire 8-month co-ops), $6,000 is barely enough to cover three months of living, let alone the next five.
Second, volunteer positions do not provide the full co-op experience. Pay is worth far more than a nice bank balance. A paid co-op is fundamentally worth a lot more to the company than a volunteer. Since companies are investing both time and money to train paid co-ops, companies are more invested in the student’s success. Employers are also more willing to exploit their “free” co-ops. Many of my classmates shared stories about how they were expected to work a minimum of twelve hours a day at some of these volunteer positions. With no real measure of how your work is valued, many students are unsure how to reject these unreasonable hours. A salary provides more leverage—students can request overtime pay, or some other form of compensation, for extra work. At the end of the day, a salary tells you that what you do is valuable to the company. With a volunteer co-op position, this is switched: students are being told that they should be grateful for the “rewarding work experience” they receive, and that they are indebted to the company.
Third, students believe that their investment in such volunteer positions will be repaid in terms of the experience they receive. A golden resume can propel them into a successful grad school program, or a career in research. The fact is that the idea that these volunteer co-op jobs at prestigious universities are giving students a “leg up” is inherently flawed as it forces more students to take up volunteer positions just to remain competitive. Moreover, there is no guarantee that taking a volunteer co-op once means that the employer will rehire you for a paid co-op later. If the trend in research is to hire unpaid interns, then this trend is not going to go away by having more students compete for more of these jobs.
Advocates of volunteer unpaid internships might argue that richer students having more opportunities than poorer students is a fault of capitalism, and therefore not a fault of the unpaid internship itself. After all, getting into university is a big financial barrier which not all students can overcome, and nobody is limiting rich students from going to university—so why limit them from getting the better internships? However, just because the current system is, well, current does not mean that it is fair. Although financial limitation is a big part of getting into university, it is not the only factor. Students have many opportunities to receive financial aid to support their education. On the other hand, when two students are competing for the same volunteer co-op job position, no matter how much higher the merit of one student may be, the student with the higher financial status would be the only one capable of taking the job. Thus, volunteer co-op positions are essentially creating a class of researchers who are both richer and more skilled than their poorer counterparts.
Another popular line of argument is that no one is forcing a student to take an unpaid co-op position. However, considering that there aren’t enough jobs to go around already, and the fact that some of these volunteer jobs are at prestigious universities, it puts students with financial hardships at a disadvantage. Others might argue that banning unpaid co-ops is not a good idea because it prevents both classes of students from getting a good co-op job: the poorer students obviously won’t get the job, but now the rich students won’t either. The same analogy could be extended to the volunteer co-op jobs in industry: desperate, jobless students who accept these industrial volunteer jobs may gain valuable experience from companies who cannot afford to (or choose not to) pay their students. However, these jobs have since been banned, because it is evident that this is just a way for employers to take advantage of co-op students. Banning these jobs might put some students at a disadvantage, but it is clear that it does make it fairer for the remaining student body.
The entire purpose of a co-op education is to give undergraduates valuable workplace training. Even if banning is not necessarily the way to go, students and CECS staff should work together to pressure these employers so that students receive some form of financial compensation. Hardworking, dedicated undergraduates should not be forced to grapple for experience that they cannot afford. Expanding opportunities for students, both in their education and their careers, is a vital component of a co-op education. We must ensure that these opportunities are expanded upon in a fair way that is accessible to all students.