MAY 21 — A growing adolescent dreams of finishing his/her university education to have a decent job/profession and a decent living. Some cherish their dreams to become doctors, and others an engineer, an educator, or an administrator. Not everyone will find their dreams come true. Yet, completing a university degree is seen as a regular path to a decent job and a decent living.
Will university education in the future be seen in the same way as it is today? The history of higher education’s evolution from Lyceum to modern-day university compels us to believe that changes in academia are inevitable.
Thirty years ago, when I joined as a lecturer at a university, language quality was a part of evaluating assignments, reports, or theses. One of the assessment rubrics was to evaluate a student’s writing skills. Later, MS Word grammar and spell checker became popular, followed by the use of language editors. We stopped evaluating writing skills for grammar. Having writing assistance like Grammarly made the job easier for both sides.
Albeit things have changed. More advanced tools are in our hands. The whole assignment, report, or thesis can be composed by chatbots. Students can prepare possible questions and answers using chatbots, helping them during the open-book examinations. Not to mention, lecturers also find chatbots helpful to prepare lecture notes and questions, as well as to mark students’ assignments.
It is just a matter of time before universities will (be forced to) accept the widespread and uncontrolled use of chatbots, like we did not bother using Grammarly. That reveals the first puzzle: Should universities change the methods of assessment?
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly replacing the human workforce with ‘inferior’ skills to their ‘counterbots’. A good number of professions, namely but not limited to entry-level bookkeeping and accounting roles, graphic designers, financial analysis, and manufacturing jobs (machine operation, product handling, testing, packaging, testing, etc.) are expected to be completely replaced by AI.
At the same time, registered nurses, choreographers, paramedics, mental health specialists and counsellors, teachers (from K-12 and further, higher education teachers), instructors, professors, civil engineers, surgeons, and journalists will heavily depend on AI assistance for their jobs.
Nevertheless, how many of us, irrespective of our university degree, will lose a so-called decent job because of AI integration in the future is unpredictable. That reality manifests the second puzzle: Should universities rethink, revamp, and renew the courses they offer as well as the contents of the courses?
While AI integration in industries is growing, Gen Z and the younger generations seem to have less and less interest in the traditional job opportunities that require university degrees. Besides, these younger generations tend to learn many of the skills they need for their jobs using AI. Hence, they might not want to go to university for learning, which otherwise adds a burden of education loans to complete their university degrees. Eventually, a lower demand for university education is expected in the future.
Furthermore, the ongoing debate on the growing demand for skilled labour and small entrepreneurs versus university graduates tends to favour the former groups as an economic force in the future. Skilled labour and small entrepreneurs can easily escape from any potential job insecurity and steadily contribute to economic growth with stability.
On that account, at the verge of a lesser demand for university degrees, the third puzzle appears: Should universities aim for a reduced (or highly selective) enrolment and reduced tuition fees?
Words reading “Artificial intelligence AI” are seen in this illustration taken December 14, 2023. — Reuters pic
Dependency and reliance on technology and advanced technical skills become increasingly inevitable. Simply put, designing, building, and repairing a house was simpler in the past compared to today. Unlike in the past, from plumber, architect, civil engineer to urban planner, a wide range of expertise and skills at different levels and categories are essential today.
Similar to housing, all forms of products and services involve a chain of tasks from development to delivery. In the near future, AI integration will automate most of the tasks within the chain of development and delivery of most, if not all, products and services. As much as specific skills are needed for each task, a holistic understanding of the total chain is imperative, especially when AI integration is inevitable for an organization providing the product or service.
That will implore universities to focus on producing graduates with different levels of skills, one with more creative skills and others with more specific technical skills (similar to technical or vocational training). Will universities then envisage the fourth puzzle: Should universities adopt a different approach to design the curriculum to produce two streams of graduates?
More and more universities are aiming to offer enrolment with a credit waiver without any formal training, such as self learning. Those who will be able to prove their knowledge and skills may not need to go through the regular path of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree. That brings forth the possibility of the fifth puzzle: Should there be a need for universities to offer a four-year bachelor’s degree program?
None of the above puzzles, I.e., the ‘should’ questions, are entirely fictitious. In some universities, the anticipated changes are already in place.
Diving deeper into those questions might make one wonder if the current format of higher education, focusing on producing skilled labourers, will continue to exist in the near future. Rather, it will intrigue one to ponder the deeper meaning of higher education, which was primarily meant to explore the philosophy of knowledge, dealing with epistemology, ontology, and axiology.
Indeed, the selection of the content, format of assessments, disciplines, and above all, the guru had a different paradigm than what we have today.
Now, the final question is: Should we, or how soon, should we embrace the ‘paradigm return’ in academia?
* Prof Mohammad is the Deputy Executive Director (Development, Research & Innovation) at International Institute of Public Policy and Management (INPUMA), Universiti Malaya, and can be reached at [email protected]
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
