T H E F U T U R E O F
H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N
Bridging the skills gap
in the AI age
Edition III
2025
The authors would like to thank Prof. Brian Beitzel, Dr. . LaRock, Prof. Arnold Pears, Dr. Sven Rogge,
Dr. Marcelo Staricoff, and Prof. Dylan Wiliam for their participation in interviews (see Appendix), along
with Dr. Omar Al-Swailem and Prof. Philip Altbach for their invaluable contributions to the development
of this report and to project work over the past few years.
SIMON GUYOMARD-NORMAN
Principal, Innovation
London
BEN THURIAUX-ALEMAN
Partner, Innovation
London
JONATHAN JEYARATNAM
Business Analyst, Innovation
London
ANDREW LEE
Business Analyst, Innovation
London
HECTOR CASAS
Principal, Energy, Utilities, and Resources
Riyadh
C O N T E N T
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY 3
1 . U N D E R S TA N D I N G T H E S K I L L S G A P 6
2 . R E S H A P I N G H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N
T O B E N E F I T E V E RY S T U D E N T 1 0
C O N C L U S I O N — S K I L L S & S T R U C T U R E S
F O R S U C C E S S 1 4
A P P E N D I X — E X P E R T C O N T R I B U T O R S 1 5
2
The higher education sector is rapidly transforming
to meet the changing needs of various stakeholders,
including academics, students, governments, and
businesses. As funding models evolve, institutions
must transform their structures and capabilities to
thrive. The demands placed on the sector by national
governments are also changing, with a heavy focus
on providing a ready supply of necessary skills
while delivering breakthrough research to drive
innovation, economic benefits, and competitiveness.
The rise of AI, new ways of working, pressure on public
budgets, and a need for breakthrough innovation to
tackle issues such as decarbonization, climate change,
and food scarcity are all impacting the skills that should
be fostered within higher education.
This report, the third in a series that dates back to
2016,1 focuses on what these skills are and how higher
education institutions (HEIs) can deliver them in the AI
age. It is based on a range of interviews with academic
experts,2 combined with Arthur D. Little (ADL) consulting
project experience across the globe.
1 Thuriaux-Aleman, Ben, et al. “The Future of Education.” Arthur D. Little, October 2016;
Thuriaux-Aleman, Ben, et al. “The Future of Higher Education, Edition II.” Arthur D. Little,
December 2023.
2 For further background on the experts, see the Appendix.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
A R T H U R D . L I T T L E
3
SKILLS IN THE AGE OF AI
Chapter 1 looks at the skills gap, including how AI
impacts current teaching and learning methods. It
outlines AI’s benefits to personalized learning and
costs to traditional structures while acknowledging
that expectations about what higher education should
deliver to society and the economy are changing. These
trends will provide the catalyst for a wide-reaching
reexamination of the learning skills that HEIs encourage,
particularly around critical thinking, learning to learn,
and ensuring that graduates are workforce-ready.
Chapter 2 outlines the impact of changing skills
requirements on the higher education landscape in
general and certain institutions in particular. To deliver
the right learning experience to all students and meet
national priorities, governments must ensure that
HEIs have clear, differentiated missions that fit within
six key archetypes. To ensure they possess the right
balance of these archetypes, from technical to graduate
research institutions, countries must reshape funding
and priorities. They must also significantly transform
the higher education landscape to meet the changing
requirements of governments, students, and other
stakeholders and deliver new skills and capabilities
that benefit both individual learners and society
at large.
4
R E P O R T: T H E F U T U R E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N , E D I T I O N I I I
5
A R T H U R D . L I T T L E
AI’s rise highlights the skills that should be
taught and nurtured through higher education,
but institutions, governments, and employers
must adopt a broader view of the full range of
capabilities needed in a rapidly evolving world.
AI’S IMPACT
Large language models (LLMs) democratize
access to knowledge, with generative AI
tools such as ChatGPT making it easier to
research and analyze literature. However, the
potential for misuse is clear, including the
replacement of original thought and research
by AI-generated content. AI also still suffers
from “hallucinations” — outputs are not always
factually correct and can be critically flawed.
Consequently, there is an ongoing battle related
to detecting AI-generated content in student
and academic work.
AI also impacts the structure of traditional
degree courses, with essays and final-year
theses no longer guaranteed to demonstrate
subject mastery, raising questions about
their role as a sign of achievement. Given the
negatives, it is easy to demonize AI; however, it
is important to keep three key considerations in
mind.
1. This situation is not new
Higher education has faced many technology-
related challenges that experts predicted would
make it obsolete. The Internet, digitization of
encyclopedias, crowdsourced knowledge, and
online courses all changed higher education
but did not destroy it (see Figure 1). While these
developments have made accessing knowledge
easier, AI now adds the potential to generate it
— through assignments, coursework, and other
outputs.
1 . U N D E R S TA N D I N G T H E S K I L L S G A P
Figure 1. 50 years of technology that didn’t kill education
MOOCs = massive open online courses
Source: Arthur D. Little
MOOCs = massive open online courses
Source: Arthur D. Little
Figure 1. 50 years of technology that didn’t kill education
F
ea
r
R
ea
li
ty
Lo
n
g
-t
er
m
re
su
lt
1982 2001 202220121975 1998
Handheld calculator
• Undermine
fundamental
numeracy
• Caused debate
& policy shifts
in math education;
banned or restricted
at first
• Fully integrated into
curricula with guided
use; now standard
tools in exams &
classrooms
Home computer
• Eliminate need
for traditional
classrooms
• Enhanced learning
flexibility & digital
access; never
replaced schools
or teachers
• Became foundational
tools for education;
central to homework,
research & blended
learning
Search engines
• Kill off libraries,
librarians &
research skills
• Massively changed
how students access
information; didn’t
eliminate need for
guidance
• Core to modern
education; led to
stronger focus on
digital literacy &
source evaluation
Wikipedia
• Destroy academic/
textbook publishing,
give only inaccurate
answers
• Widely used by
students but rarely
accepted as a formal
source; supplemented
rather than replaced
traditional materials
• Normalized open-
access knowledge;
widely used for initial
learning, but formal
citation still relies on
verified sources
MOOCs
• Kill off degree
courses & campus-
based universities
• High enrollment
but low completion;
failed to displace
degrees or campus
learning
• Found a limited
role in professional
development,
blended learning
& outreach
ChatGPT
• Wholesale automation
of coursework, tutoring
& teaching
• Sparked bans
& rethinking of
assessment; rapidly
adopted in some areas
for support & planning
• Still unfolding
but increasingly
integrated as a tool;
shifting education
toward AI-literate
pedagogy
Microsoft Encarta
1992
Virtual reality
2017
Tablets (iPads)
2010
6
R E P O R T: T H E F U T U R E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N , E D I T I O N I I I
A R T H U R D . L I T T L E
“In education, we’ve always heard that the
game-changing technology is here, and
we’re never going to be the same after this.
So I approach [it] with a little bit of skepticism,
understanding that there is a capability there
that could be harnessed for good or for evil.
But also, not fearful.”
— Brian Beitzel
2. AI is evolving rapidly
AI is progressing quickly in terms of what it can
achieve. As Sven Rogge notes, “LLMs exist, they
will continue to exist, they are not going away.”
3. AI will enable new ways of learning
& teaching
AI can transform higher education, shifting its
focus from helping students acquire knowledge
to delivering hyper-personalized learning
approaches at scale, enabling people to learn
without being aware that they are doing so.
Higher education will move beyond the
traditional formula of spreading knowledge
through large, in-person lectures that don’t
necessarily match the learning style or location
of the student. As educators and students
become more accustomed to using AI tools
(and design “flipped”3 classroom environments
to better leverage them), the way students
engage with learning materials will change. It
is already possible to have a “conversation” with
a literary character like Hamlet or a historical
figure like Karl Marx through AI, and many other
tools are under development.
Governments are concerned about the potential
impact of AI in higher education and are
developing regulations to address this. However,
the regulatory journey has just begun, with
most countries simply reminding institutions
of their responsibilities around safeguarding
students and data. Essentially, they are
issuing generic guidance rather than legally
enforceable frameworks. In the absence of clear
regulatory oversight, a balanced approach is
needed: focusing on areas where real value is
added (., enhanced knowledge management
in both teaching and research contexts) without
upending the educational orthodoxy or risking
“devaluing” the degree.
3 “Flipped” teaching asks the student to complete lessons (reading, lecture content) prior to class and then focuses on live problem-solving
during contact hours.
GOING BEYOND
SHARING KNOWLEDGE
The way we conceive of knowledge and our
understanding of what comprises a degree
course is about to change. Specifically, the
way successful learning is measured must shift
away from the type of coursework that can be
generated by AI.
Everyone will need to get better at learning to
learn, with successful students (and employees)
being those who (1) know how to interrogate
knowledge, (2) can make intuitive connections,
and (3) understand how to be creative in the
application of information. Essentially, students
need to develop a learning toolbox from primary
education onward.
“Give [learners] all the tools and strategies that
will enable them to engage with the learning …
so you give strategies for them to think creatively
and critically and philosophically.”
— Marcello Staricoff
When it comes to learning to learn, experts
agree it begins with critical thinking. This will
reshape traditional higher education teaching
pathways as they move away from simply
sharing knowledge (see Figure 2).
“Our task is to make students critical thinkers
... we can only try to make our students as
adaptable as they can be.”
— Sven Rogge
In addition, institutions can focus on teaching
workplace skills that will benefit the student
and the overall economy, such as creativity and
entrepreneurship, regardless of the subject they
are studying.
“[We must look to] disciplines [that] are most
well-positioned to help people think critically,
where arguments are examined and the
credibility of claims is examined.… Philosophy
[for example] has a lot to do with logic and
support for evidence, support for arguments.”
—Brian Beitzel
7
Although critical thinking is increasingly seen as
a desirable trait in those entering the workforce,
concisely defining the term is difficult. One
foundational definition proposed by Edward
Glaser back in the 1940s identified it as the
combination of an attitude, knowledge of
methods/logic, and skill in method application.
Since then, multiple frameworks that add
nuance and complexity have been developed.
Essentially, there are various forms of critical
thinking and different skills within it, which
makes teaching it difficult. According to Dylan
Wiliam, “It’s actually a bundle of superficially
similar skills that rely on fundamentally
different cognitive processes.”
However, most agree that the skills of source
management, fact-checking, and understanding
context are key parts. Traditionally, these have
been associated with subjects like history,
classics, or politics, providing pathways into
legal and journalistic careers. Moving forward,
these skills will be vital for a wider range of
careers/research, such as those in which reams
of data points can be compiled in seconds but
take months to understand.
Critical thinking is also essential in STEM
(science, technology, engineering, medicine)
fields: once a “core” knowledge base has been
developed, these subjects offer a strong
opportunity to build critical thinking mindsets
through the scientific method. The challenge
is balancing the two elements. Students must
build a baseline of knowledge in their field
to be relevant and meet expectations upon
graduation. They must then be able to separate
fact from fiction while developing critical
thinking skills that are unique to their field. For
educators and higher education administrators,
this means integrating critical thinking into the
classroom alongside the core curriculum, rather
than presenting it as an optional activity.
“Executing the scientific method in itself is an
exercise in using critical thinking skills. It comes
down actually to those skills that represent ways
of making judgments and ways of making sense
of complex situations that aren’t clear cut.”
— . LaRock
Figure 2. Three views on critical thinking
Source: Arthur D. Little
Source: Arthur D. Little
Figure 2. Three views on critical thinking
Problem-solving
Decision-making
Strategic planning
Risk management
Information evaluation
Creative thinking
BUSINESS VIEW PEDAGOGICAL VIEW SCIENTIFIC VIEW
Scientific argumentation
Evidence evaluation
Problem formulation
Hypothesis formulation
Experimental design
Logical reasoning
Interpretation
Analysis
Evaluation
Inference
Explanation
Self-regulation
Understanding critical thinking
8
R E P O R T: T H E F U T U R E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N , E D I T I O N I I I
A R T H U R D . L I T T L E
WANTED: WORKFORCE-
READY GRADUATES
In the age of AI, what do societies and
governments want to achieve for learners
through funding HEIs, either directly (tuition
fees) or indirectly (taxation and grants)?
Traditionally, learning and higher education
were goals in and of themselves. This has
been replaced by a more realistic view, as
set out by Arnold Pears: “Higher education
is about equipping individuals to maximize
their potential in the societies in which they
live.” Education has also become more of a
continuous, ongoing process that stretches
beyond a set degree course.
As governments in both developed and
developing countries grapple with the
rising cost of education and growing global
competition for staff and students, the tension
between modern and traditional views is a key
focus for HEIs. Essentially, what skills beyond
the subject should be taught? This must reflect
wider needs, as Staricoff explains: “The ethics
and values that accompany education are really
crucial to use the knowledge widely for society.”
4 See: Khoury, Raymond et al. “Enhancing University Rankings to Support Human Capital Development.” Arthur D. Little, February 2025.
Focusing on teaching the right skills helps HEIs
demonstrate that they are delivering societal
and economic value. For example, if HEIs are
seen as part of economic development, with
a responsibility to serve their country’s wider
public policy goals, they must help students
build entrepreneurial skills while ensuring at
least some coursework aligns with employers’
“The orientation of the workforce development
apparatus is completely mismatched for what
present-day needs are.”
— . LaRock
HEIs must also help students master AI and
learn to use it ethically, teach critical thinking
skills, and create opportunities for learning
to learn. This requires a radical change in how
courses are delivered, continual reframing and
reinvestment, revamped learning plans, and a
focus on ensuring students can apply what they
have learned in novel situations.
9
AC A D E M I C S H AV E
L O N G H E L D T H AT
L EC T U R E R S M U S T
A L S O B E R E S E A R C H E R S ,
W O R K I N G AT T H E
FO R E F R O N T O F T H E I R
F I E L D S O F I N T E R E S T
Having established the need to change how
higher education operates, we now examine
the implications for institutional structures
and capabilities.
IMPACTS & THREATS
OF CURRENT TRENDS
Currently, teaching and research are carried out
in the same institutions by (roughly) the same
people using the same facilities. The interlinked
trends of AI, a desire to use higher education
to deliver societal and economic benefits, and
growing global competition are set to reshape
that model:
- The lecture-based operating model will
continue to erode, with students able to watch
prerecorded lecture content online from
wherever they are located. As Pears points
out, this is “a huge democratizer, a big leveler,
and can help a lot of people in disadvantaged
circumstances.”
- Students have an ever-increasing opportunity
to learn technical subjects outside a
degree environment. This may be outside
the education sphere altogether (.,
learning while working or through corporate
apprenticeships).
Splitting research & teaching
Academics have long held that lecturers must
also be researchers, working at the forefront of
their fields of interest, even though many are
better suited to one discipline over the other.
This is becoming more recognized, with teaching
and research increasingly being separated.
“Universities do teaching and research, and we
look at that separately. And they’re increasingly
being done by different people supported by
different funding streams. And the question is,
is it sustainable?”
— Dylan Wiliam
The uncoupling of research and teaching poses
a fundamental threat to many HEIs because
it requires different settings, equipment, and
capabilities. It may not impact global elite
institutions (., Cambridge, Princeton, ETH
Zurich, Peking, and Tsinghua) that have strong
brand recognition based on academic strengths,
but it will likely affect institutions that cannot
differentiate themselves by demonstrating a
clear institutional mission.
To succeed, HEIs will need to play to their
strengths, such as focusing on specific subjects
(medicine, engineering, humanities) to attract
students or seeking funding in the global
marketplace while dramatically increasing
their operational efficiency.
2 . R E S H A P I N G H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N
T O B E N E F I T E V E R Y S T U D E N T
1 0
R E P O R T: T H E F U T U R E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N , E D I T I O N I I I
本报告来源于三个皮匠报告站（）,由用户Id:1079574下载,文档Id:903158,下载日期:2025-09-09
A R T H U R D . L I T T L E
RESTRUCTURING
HIGHER EDUCATION
Although disruption threatens traditional
HEI business models, it allows governments
to restructure and reinvigorate their higher
education sector and its funding to meet changing
societal and economic needs. For example,
countries need to ensure people are being
trained for key professions, such as medicine,
while building a professional workforce with
sufficient innovational potential (., researchers,
engineers) to ensure national competitiveness.
Rather than taking a blanket approach that
delivers a homogenous landscape of similar
institutions, governments should encourage
specialization in one of six archetypes that
provide a wide range of postsecondary options
(see Figure 3). This ADL framework (which
references the Carnegie higher education
classification system) is based on extensive
global research into the education sector overall
and, more specifically, how a variety of skills
needs can be met.
The rise of institutions of assessment & accreditation
One potential avenue for major disruption in
higher education is dividing teaching from
assessment. By following the model used in
secondary education, in which assessment is
standardized and outsourced to a third party,
HEIs could either focus solely on teaching
or become an institution of assessment and
accreditation, setting and marking courses
delivered by others. This will be genuinely
disruptive to the HEI business model,
particularly if outside organizations (., the
EU or bodies representing specific professions)
create their own degree-level certifications.
1 Students from 1858 onward could study independently, then pay to take University of London exams. Original fees were £5 (~£500 in 2025 value).
The program as originally organized has largely been retired in favor of a more modern distance-learning approach.
This would increase the pressure on mid-tier
universities with little differentiation to justify
teaching and assessing their own courses in
specific subjects while potentially removing
the burden of requiring external moderation of
such courses. However, there is precedent for
HEIs positioning themselves in assessment and
accreditation environments rather than focusing
solely on teaching. For example, the University of
London’s External System,1 in which independent
students pay to take the institution’s exams,
dates to 1858. In Wiliam’s view, this unbundling of
assessment from instruction is a powerful idea:
“It’s happening already in micro-credentials,
and I don’t see why it wouldn’t happen in higher
education.”
Figure 3. Post-secondary educational institution archetypes
Source: Arthur D. Little
Source: Arthur D. Little
Figure 3. Post-secondary educational institution archetypes
Graduate research
university
Focuses on research at masters and doctoral levels, aligned with national priority
focus areas
High-intensity research
university
Provides a strong pipeline of research & innovation through teaching undergraduate
courses & developing research talent at the postgraduate level
Provides high-quality education for career-focused programs, facilitating entry
into professional workforce with minimal post-graduate offerings or researchTeaching university
Usually small in size (<1,000 students), focused on a relatively niche subject
or one that is underserved by the mainstream education systemSpecialized institution
An academically focused university with strengths in teaching across
the board & research activities across several colleges/departmentsComprehensive university
Provides specialist training, equipping students with industry-specific skills
for immediate employment; drives life-long learning with short courses
Technical & vocational
institution
1 1
Meeting the needs of students and the
country itself requires an assortment of these
archetypes. Analysis of successful global
educational systems shows that although the
specific names of these archetypes may vary,
they are usually all represented in the HEI
landscape (see Figure 4).
In the not-too-distant future, it will be
impossible for an HEI to thrive as an average
high-intensity research or comprehensive
university. Students are no longer willing to
pay high tuition fees without the guarantee
of an excellent education and future earning
opportunities. At the same time, governments
are increasingly questioning whether
subsidizing these institutions is in the national
interest, based on the value they provide. Most
institutions will benefit by differentiating their
mission to deliver high-quality, personalized
experiences for students and build a reputation
for engaged, entrepreneurial graduates who
command a premium in the global workforce.
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT
APPROACHES
Governments face a critical challenge: ensuring
their country offers a mixture of institutions and
opportunities so students can personalize their
learning journey, and national skills needs are met.
Note that competition for research funding often
drives universities to focus intensely on that area,
abandoning their previously balanced missions
of research, teaching, and public service. This
undifferentiated approach impacts students and
overall higher education outcomes. For example,
while a high-intensity research institution may
have a global reputation, some students may be
better served by attending a teaching university
or other institution. It is therefore vital to stress
to students and employers that the type of
institution one chooses to attend does not
reflect one’s skills, intelligence, or prospects. At
a national level, the focus should be on positive
outcomes for the widest populace, not a few
success stories about those with degrees from
well-known universities.
Figure 4. Example country/state higher education landscapes
TVET = technical and vocational education and training
Note: Shows number of discrete institution of each type
Source: Arthur D. Little, country government policy documents, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), UNESCO, expert interviews
TVET = technical and vocational education and training
Note: Shows number of discrete institution of each type
Source: Arthur D. Little, country government policy documents, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), UNESCO,
expert interviews
Figure 4. Example country/state higher education landscapes
Ir
el
an
d
G
er
m
an
y
C
h
in
a
S
o
u
th
A
fr
ic
a
N
ew
Y
o
rk
(U
S
)
U
K
Carnegie
Carnegie
Carnegie
Carnegie
Carnegie
Carnegie
Doctoral
universities
Master’s institutions
& universities
Baccalaureate
colleges
Associate’s
colleges
Doctoral
universities
Master’s institutions
& universities
Baccalaureate
colleges
Associate’s
colleges
Doctoral
universities
Master’s institutions
& universities
Baccalaureate
colleges
Associate’s
colleges
Doctoral
universities
Master’s institutions
& universities
Baccalaureate
colleges
Associate’s
colleges
Doctoral
universities
Master’s institutions
& universities
Baccalaureate
colleges
Associate’s
colleges
Doctoral
universities
Master’s institutions
& universities
Baccalaureate
colleges
Associate’s
colleges
Universities (comprehensive universities) – 1,271
TVET institutions
& adult higher
education
institutions – 1,742
Research-based
universities – 234
TVET institutions –
1,267
Research-based
universities – 108
Other institutions – 52
Colleges of art & music – 52
Universities of applied science – 210
TVET institutions
(education &
training boards) – 16
Research
universities
(traditional, PhD)
– 8
Technology universities – 5
Further education
colleges – 270 Universities – 111
Independent sector
(independent & proprietary)
Technology colleges – 7
University colleges – 13
University centers –
14
Community
colleges – 30
Comprehensive universities (formed through merger of research & polytechnic institutions) – 6
Research
universities – 12
TVET institutions
– 50 Universities of applied
science/technology – 8
Limited offering of master’s
& doctoral degrees
1 2
R E P O R T: T H E F U T U R E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N , E D I T I O N I I I
A R T H U R D . L I T T L E
The most well-documented example of mission
differentiation comes from the California
Master Plan, developed in the 1960s to establish
and manage the widely distributed higher
education assets (see Figure 5). The plan
established clear institutional archetype goals:
- More than 100 community colleges for
associate-level education
- About 25 California state universities
for professional courses at the bachelor
and master levels
- 10 Universities of California with a
research focus
By establishing collaboration and coordination
across the system, the master plan reduced
program duplication to (1) ensure institutions
focused on their strengths and (2) foster access
and affordability.
Crucially, the master plan recognized that
student mobility is essential and included
pathways for students to move from community
colleges to colleges offering bachelor’s degrees
and post-bachelor degrees.
The continuing relevance of mission
differentiation can be seen in Saudi Arabia,
which deployed a blueprint for the revamping
of postsecondary education that improves
student options while aligning institutional
missions with the country’s wider knowledge
economy plans. Soon, relatively few universities
in the country will qualify as high-intensity
research universities, and those that do must
meet significant targets for increasing research
outputs and doctoral-level researchers. At
the same time, teaching universities are being
subjected to new funding models (rewarded
based on measured teaching quality) in order to
create a professional workforce with the right
skills to deliver economic growth.
Mission differentiation
Figure 5. Distribution of California state universities
and Universities of California, following the master plan
Source: Arthur D. Little
Source: Arthur D. Little
Figure A. Distribution of California state universities and
Universities of California, following the master plan
Cal Poly Humboldt
CSU Chico
Sonoma State
University
CSU Sacramento
CSU Maritime CSU East Bay
San Francisco State University
San Jose State University
CSU Stanislaus
CSU Monterey Bay
CSU Fresno
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
CSU Bakersfield
CSU Channel Islands
CSU Northridge
San Diego State University
CSU Dominguez Hills
CSU Los Angeles
Cal Poly Pomona
CSU San Bernardino
CSU San Marcos
CSU Long Beach
CSU Fullerton
UC Davis
UC Berkeley
UC San Francisco
UC Santa Cruz
UC Los Angeles
UC Santa Barbara
UC Riverside
UC San Diego
UC Irvine
1 3
The pace of change within higher education has
always been fast and has accelerated with the
advent of the Internet and digitization. HEIs
are generally resilient, adapting well to the
rise of new technologies alongside external
pressures such as funding changes and the
recent pandemic. However, the combination of
AI and a renewed government focus on higher
education’s societal role is driving a more
disruptive change in three critical areas:
1. The relationship between educator and
student — how they learn and what skills
they learn
2. The mission of the HEI — how it differentiates
itself in a global market
3. The overall structure of a country’s higher
education sector, including the balance
between institutional archetypes, their funding
models, and the degree to which their degrees
match societal and workforce needs
HEIs need to see themselves not merely
as educators but as trainers of the future
workforce. At the same time, Departments/
Ministries of Education and higher education
bodies should create regulatory environments
and funding streams that reward teaching
universities (not just those focused on research),
especially those providing innovative learning
environments.
H E I s A R E G E N E R A L LY
R E S I L I E N T, A DA P T I N G
W E L L T O T H E R I S E O F
N E W T EC H N O L O G I E S
A L O N G S I D E E X T E R N A L
P R E S S U R E S
Governments and institutions need to
collaborate to create programs designed
to build critical thinking skills for a variety
of degree programs, setting students up
for a lifetime of continuous learning and
development.
The disruption being driven by AI provides a
unique opportunity for higher education leaders
to take a critical look at the current landscape,
compare it to their future needs, and adapt
their activities to deliver success at a student,
institutional, and societal level.
C O N C L U S I O N — S K I L L S &
S T R U C T U R E S F O R S U C C E S S
1 4
R E P O R T: T H E F U T U R E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N , E D I T I O N I I I
A R T H U R D . L I T T L E
BRIAN BEITZEL
Brian D. Beitzel, Associate Dean and Professor
of Educational Psychology at State University
of New York (SUNY) Oneonta, USA, cochairs
the Strategic Planning Council and directs
education assessment and accreditation.
His research explores diagram use in math
instruction, educational assessments, and
video case learning. Prof. Beitzel recently
chaired the 8th International Conference
on Future Education 2025 in Bali, Indonesia.
. LAROCK
. LaRock is Professor of the Practice of Law
and Policy at Northeastern University, USA,
shaping curriculum innovation in response
to AI advancements. As president and CEO of
Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE),
he also leads efforts to empower students
from under-resourced communities through
entrepreneurship. A seasoned education policy
leader, Dr. LaRock is a regular speaker on the
future of education.
ARNOLD PEARS
Arnold Pears, Chaired Professor and Head of
Learning in Engineering Sciences at KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden, researches
how students engage with engineering to
guide inclusive, impactful STEM education.
Prof. Pears aims to make engineering relevant
to young people and explores generative
AI’s role in transforming higher education,
speaking regularly on its impact on the future
of education.
SVEN ROGGE
Sven Rogge, Associate Professor at Ghent
University, Belgium, and co-lecturer of courses
in engineering physics, develops simulation
methods that can leverage AI to design and
interrogate functional materials. Dr. Rogge’s
work combines multiscale modeling, strain
engineering, and machine learning (ML), with
recent highlights including a 2024 study on ML-
based screening of covalent organic frameworks
for carbon capture and a talk at AI4AM2025 on in
silico strain engineering.
MARCELO STARICOFF
Marcelo Staricoff, Lecturer at the University of
Sussex, UK, leads the BA Primary and Early Years
with QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) and Master’s
in Education programs. Author of The Joy of
Not Knowing, he advocates for transformative
teaching. A former scientist and head teacher,
Dr. Staricoff has advised UNICEF on curriculum
reform and supports UK schools. He has also
been recognized as a Fellow of the Higher
Education Academy.
DYLAN WILIAM
Dylan Wiliam, Emeritus Professor of Educational
Assessment at University College London,
is known for his expertise in assessment to
support learning. Formerly, he was Dean of the
School of Education at King’s College London
and academic coordinator for developing
assessments for the national curriculum of
England and Wales. Prof. Wiliam studies AI’s
impact on education, coauthoring work on its
implications and leading workshops on its role
in teaching.
A P P E N D I X — E X P E R T C O N T R I B U T O R S
1 5
Arthur D. Little has been at the forefront of innovation since
1886. We are an acknowledged thought leader in linking
strategy, innovation and transformation in technology-
intensive and converging industries. We navigate our clients
through changing business ecosystems to uncover new growth
opportunities. We enable our clients to build innovation
capabilities and transform their organizations.
Our consultants have strong practical industry experience
combined with excellent knowledge of key trends and dynamics.
ADL is present in the most important business centers around the
world. We are proud to serve most of the Fortune 1000 companies, in
addition to other leading firms and public sector organizations.
For further information, please visit .
Copyright © Arthur D. Little – 2025. All rights reserved.
