University processes are ¡°ripe¡± for automation by generative artificial intelligence, according to a new report, with ¡°massive implications¡± for professional services jobs.

With institutions across the world facing pressure on their finances ¨C and staff cuts the ¡°only place that real and sustained savings can be made¡± ¨C embracing AI in administration ¡°offers us a path to a better higher education system which uses its limited resources well¡±, according to Ant Bagshaw, deputy chief executive of the Australian Public Policy Institute.

Writing in a new collection of essays about the future of universities in the age of AI published on 16 October, Bagshaw says that ¡°some of the skills, knowledge and processes held dear in universities are no longer as rare or precious as they once were¡±.

Reports, agendas, policies and minutes that are a mainstay of university life are all ¡°ripe for GenAI to work on¡±, he adds, while more specialist tasks such as navigating and interpreting statutes, ordinances and regulations have now also been made more accessible.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

¡°It seems implausible that universities will run completely absent of professional staff, not least because there are many roles where physical actions are essential or where human contact makes a material positive impact,¡± Bagshaw writes in his contribution to the collection collated by the UK¡¯s Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) and the University of Southampton.

¡°We need to recognise, however, that GenAI has massive implications for universities and the net result is likely fewer jobs.¡±

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

He says changes will be ¡°painful and difficult¡± but the ¡°university exists not to serve its staff but to be a place where students receive high-quality and useful education and from which research makes a positive impact on the world¡±.

Massification has also already depersonalised the staff and student experience, he adds, and if countries want to retain high-participation systems, this ¡°can only be achieved with improved productivity¡±.

He also acknowledges that GenAI tools are ¡°imperfect¡± and prone to bias, intellectual property infringement, error and hallucinations but ¡°we should not pretend the system we have now is perfect¡± and if ¡°our choice is between two flawed systems, we should choose the cheaper one¡±.

Universities should offer retraining opportunities to staff affected, Bagshaw adds, as it ¡°is more humane to help colleagues into new roles now than to sustain jobs which machines can do better and cheaper¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Writing elsewhere in the collection, Rose Luckin, professor of learner centred design at the UCL Knowledge Lab, says the rise of AI means ¡°humans need to become significantly more intelligent, not less¡±.

This, she says, represents a ¡°profound challenge¡± for educators because the products have so far been promoted as ways to make life ¡°easier¡± and learning ¡°effortless¡±.

There is an ¡°urgent need¡±, argues Luckin, for ¡°policy interventions that ensure AI serves as a tool for enhancing ¨C rather than replacing ¨C human intelligence¡±.

For traditional education systems that only measure narrow outcomes, the challenge will be to broaden assessment to look at the development of cognition, she adds.?

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

AI will be useful in this, Luckin says, as it ¡°can now help us understand much more about the nuance of the way in which a learner is learning¡±.

It could be used, for example, to ¡°identify patterns in how students engage with feedback, how they approach problem-solving or how their motivation fluctuates throughout a learning journey¡± and then help universities tailor support in response.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com