探花视频

‘Painful job losses likely’ as AI fills university admin roles

Institutions should retrain staff affected now rather than ‘sustain jobs which machines can do better and cheaper’, expert argues

Published on
十月 16, 2025
Last updated
十月 16, 2025
Source: iStock/CRobertson

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 – and staff cuts the “only place that real and sustained savings can be made” – 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 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.

“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.”

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”.


Campus resource: How will AI reshape academic employment?


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 – rather than replacing – 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.?

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.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

相关文章

Reader's comments (5)

Writing course documents used to take days, all those aims, objectives, learning outcomes and sticking to the word count. I used my own pre AI method of copying large chunks of the docs of other courses I admired and changing as necessary. No-one ever read them anyway except during the review (and I doubt anyone really did then) and they seemed to have no measurable effect on the learning experience of any student. Let AI write them and possibly even be the external to check them...they'll none of them be missed.
If you course documents are that unimportant, then, rather than getting AI to write them, the solution is to not have them written at all. Of course there is a reason that the documents exist. I genuinely find the concept of learning objectives one of the most useful things I learnt during my lecturer training. Rather than just waffling on about a subject for an hour, or just spouting a set of facts that I expect students to spout back at my in the exam, I now go into a lecture with a concrete intellectual aim - there is a specific goal behind everything I say. Of course these forms can be cheated, and no one will every look at them. But you might find that you are cheating yourself and your students out of a better way to structure learning. The same goes for things like EDI sections on grant applications. There purpose is not to judge someones EDI policies, but rather for the applicant to prove that they have applied serious mental effort to thinking about it. You can cheat by copying, writing boilerplate, or using AI, but you have not then applied serious mental effort, which was the point.
Key phrase is? - if for financial and productivity reasons have to choose between two flawed systems (humans or AI), then go for the cheaper (AI)!
the “university exists not to serve its staff". Well that is stating the bleeding obvious as Basil Fawlty would have said. But surely the academic staff are part of the university, arguably the most important part of the University. I love the way the management defines itself as the "University" in this way as if it were the independent arbiter of the role and function of the university, and not, as some also might argue, a parasitic host on the body of the University? Let us put it thy8s way "the university exists not to serve the interests of it administarators and managers".
new
If agendas and minutes can be written quicker, this will give us all time for more meetings.
ADVERTISEMENT