Work-integrated learning is often imagined as something students leave the university to do: a placement, internship, practicum, or co-op experience.

But what if we designed more university courses so that students encountered real people, real problems, and work that mattered as part of the course itself?

Could students work alongside community partners, other disciplines, or people with lived experience to respond to authentic questions, without requiring a formal placement?

And if they did, what might change?

Would students take greater ownership of their learning?
Would theory become more useful- or more complicated?
Would they develop a stronger sense that their knowledge could contribute to something beyond a grade?

It also raises harder questions.

When does an authentic learning experience become unpaid labour?
Who benefits from the work students produce?
How should community partners and people with lived experience be compensated for the time, knowledge, and expertise they contribute?
Who gets access to these opportunities, and who is excluded by time, transportation, disability, employment, caring responsibilities, or other barriers?

Creating consequential, community-involved learning cannot depend only on the enthusiasm, time, or personal networks of individual professors. It requires us to think about the structures around the learning: funding, relationships, accessibility, workload, recognition, and reciprocity.

Discussion Question: How can universities structurally support faculty to design consequential, community-involved learning while guaranteeing equity, access, and mutual benefit for everyone involved?