Our future is shaped by the quality of the questions we dare to ask. Not just any question, but the right critical question, at the right time, in the right place, under the right circumstances, and with the right inspiration.
For me, this is not only a philosophical statement. It is also practical. In engineering, mathematics, renewable energy systems, experimental research, product design, industrial validation, and academic leadership, we rarely solve the real problem by looking only at the first visible symptom. We first ask: what is the actual system? What are the hidden variables? Where is the boundary condition? Which assumption is quietly misleading us?
That is the same way I now look at the future of UK universities.
The problem is not only financial. It is not only about tuition fees. It is not only about international students. It is not only about artificial intelligence. It is not only about governance, curriculum, employability, staff morale, estate costs, research funding, regulation, or public trust.
It is all of these at the same time.
My argument is simple: UK higher education does not need managed decline. It needs redesign.
Not cosmetic redesign. Not another strategy document with impressive words and limited operational meaning. Not a defensive exercise to protect every inherited habit. UK universities need serious redesign of educational purpose, financial model, research cost, curriculum, assessment, governance, and institutional identity.
This is not an anti-university argument. It is very much a pro-university argument. I believe universities remain among the most important institutions in a serious society. But if we truly value them, we must be honest about the pressures they now face. Sentiment will not balance the budget. Nostalgia will not redesign the curriculum. Denial is not a governance strategy.
Why do universities still matter?
Before discussing crisis, we should remind ourselves why universities matter.
The public debate about universities often moves between two weak extremes. One side treats universities as sacred institutions that should never be questioned. The other side treats them as expensive degree factories that should simply be disciplined by market forces. Both views are too crude.
Universities are not only teaching providers. They are part of the national infrastructure of knowledge, skills, research, innovation, civic development, professional formation, regional growth, cultural life, and international reputation.
Universities UK, drawing on London Economics analysis of 2021–22 data, reported that the UK higher education sector generated more than £265 billion of economic impact and that every £1 of public money invested in universities generated about £14 of economic benefit [1].
That is not a small contribution. It shows that universities are not a marginal public service. They are part of the country’s productive and intellectual capacity.
But here is the difficult point: being valuable does not automatically make an institution financially resilient. Being historically important does not make a business model sustainable. Being full of intelligent people does not automatically produce intelligent organisational decisions.
Universities can be intellectually brilliant and institutionally fragile at the same time. That is precisely why leadership matters.
So the real question is not: should universities survive? Of course they should.
The better question is this: what kind of universities can survive with legitimacy, quality, financial resilience, and public trust in the age of AI, constrained public funding, volatile international recruitment, and changing labour-market demand?
What does the financial evidence say?
The evidence is uncomfortable, but it is useful because it removes the excuse of vagueness.
The Office for Students states that, without mitigating action, 119 institutions, or 42.7 per cent of providers included in its analysis, could report deficits in 2025–26 [2]. This does not mean that all of these institutions are about to collapse. It means that financial pressure is broad, material, and strategically significant.
Universities UK has also reported that real-terms funding per domestic student in England declined by 35 per cent between 2015–16 and 2025–26, and that funding per domestic student in 2025–26 stood at 64 per cent of the 2015–16 level [3].
This matters because the English home undergraduate funding model has relied heavily on a capped tuition-fee system. When fees remain constrained while inflation, pay, pensions, energy, estate, technology, regulation, and student support costs rise, the unit of resource weakens.
Universities can improve efficiency. In some cases, they must. But efficiency alone cannot solve a structural funding problem if the teaching income per student has lost substantial real value.
A university cannot educate the future by pretending that the cost of the present does not exist.
Why is international student income not a safe permanent solution?
International students bring educational, cultural, intellectual, and economic value to UK universities. They enrich classrooms, strengthen global networks, and support the international reputation of UK higher education.
However, financial dependence on international student income creates risk when budgets assume continuous growth.
Official HESA statistics for 2024–25 show that higher education student enrolment remains very large, but also subject to changing patterns by level, domicile, and provider type [4]. International recruitment is exposed to visa policy, family policy, currency movements, geopolitics, competitor countries, student confidence, agent behaviour, and institutional reputation.
From 1 January 2024, the UK Government restricted most international students from bringing family members, except in limited circumstances such as postgraduate research routes and certain government-funded scholarships [5]. That policy may have been designed around migration control, but it also affected the recruitment environment for universities, particularly in taught postgraduate markets.
The lesson is clear. International student income is valuable, but it should not be used to hide weaknesses in domestic teaching finance, research cost recovery, estate cost, or staffing models.
A forecast is not income until the student enrols and pays.
Why is research excellence not always financially sustainable?
Research is central to the identity and global standing of universities. It generates new knowledge, trains researchers, supports industry and public policy, and strengthens the intellectual life of the institution.
But research excellence does not automatically equal financial sustainability.
UK Research and Innovation states that its normal policy is to pay 80 per cent of eligible full economic costs on successful standard research grant applications [6]. This means that universities often need to support the remaining cost from other sources. In practice, research can be academically prestigious but financially under-recovered.
That is not an argument against research. It is an argument for better research costing, stronger partnerships, clearer institutional priorities, and more honest leadership.
A university may be research-intensive, globally respected, and still financially strained if research activity is not properly costed. A grant can be academically excellent but financially partial. A department can win more grants and still feel poorer if laboratory costs, doctoral support, infrastructure, technical staff, compliance, and academic time are not fully understood.
The future university must therefore ask: which research activities strengthen institutional identity, public value, and financial sustainability, and which activities require stronger partnership or better cost recovery?
What is the real structural problem?
In my judgement, the UK university crisis is not one single crisis. It is a convergence of several pressures.
First, the domestic teaching model is financially squeezed. The real value of home student funding has fallen while student expectations have risen.
Second, the international cross-subsidy model is volatile. It can work during growth, but becomes dangerous when budgets assume that growth will continue forever.
Third, research is not always financially self-sustaining. The prestige economy of research can encourage activity without enough cost visibility.
Fourth, regulation and consumer expectations have changed the student-university relationship. The Competition and Markets Authority advises higher education providers to give students information that is accurate, clear, unambiguous, timely, and available before students make decisions about where and what to study [7].
Fifth, curriculum relevance is under pressure. The Department for Education’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper focuses on meeting economic needs, closing skills gaps, supporting growth, and reforming higher education teaching and research [8].
Sixth, AI has changed the educational equation. The Government recognises that artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies will disrupt the labour market, transform teaching and research, and require a more deliberate approach to future skills [8].
Seventh, governance has become more demanding. The Office for Students strategy for 2025 to 2030 places sector resilience alongside quality and student experience, making financial resilience and effective governance central regulatory concerns [9].
This is why universities cannot respond only with cuts. Cutting may sometimes be necessary, but cutting is not the same as redesign.
What should education mean now?
If the system is under pressure, we must ask a deeper question: what is education now?
This is not a decorative philosophical question. It is a financial, academic, civic, and leadership question.
For decades, many universities could operate on an implicit promise: come to university, receive expert teaching, gain a degree, improve your career prospects, and join a community of knowledge.
That promise still matters. But it is no longer enough.
Students now live in a world where AI can generate text, code, summaries, images, translations, outlines, reports, simulations, and sometimes very confident nonsense in seconds. Employers need graduates who can think, judge, communicate, adapt, use evidence, work with technology, understand ethics, and solve problems that do not arrive with a neat marking scheme.
So I would define the future purpose of higher education in this way:
A university should develop disciplined human capability.
Not only content memory. Not only assessment performance. Not only a certificate.
Disciplined human capability means the ability to frame problems, test evidence, use knowledge responsibly, work across uncertainty, collaborate with others, understand tools, challenge assumptions, and produce value for society.
That definition changes curriculum design.
A module should not only ask: what content do we cover?
It should also ask:
What human capability does this module develop that still matters when AI is available?
What judgement does the student learn?
What evidence does the student handle?
What design choices does the student make?
What ethical boundary does the student understand?
What real problem can the student address?
This is why I believe universities should move from a narrow idea of research-informed teaching to a stronger model of evidence-informed, industry-informed, AI-informed, and society-informed education.
Research-informed teaching remains important. But on its own, it can become too inward-looking if it does not connect with labour-market change, industrial R&D, public-sector demand, sustainability, digital transformation, and civic need.
How should universities redesign curriculum?
The Quality Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code sets out principles for securing academic standards and assuring and enhancing quality in UK higher education [10]. This matters because curriculum redesign must not mean lowering standards. It should mean strengthening educational purpose.
Innovation without standards becomes chaos. Standards without innovation become museum work.
Every university programme should be tested against five questions.
First, what capability does this programme develop?
A course should not exist only because it has existed before. It should develop clear intellectual, professional, technical, civic, or creative capability.
Second, what evidence proves that capability is being developed?
Student satisfaction is useful, but it is not enough. Graduate outcomes, assessment quality, authentic work, external engagement, employer feedback, research integration, and student progression all matter.
Third, how does the curriculum engage with AI and digital tools?
AI should not be treated as a minor technical issue. It affects learning, assessment, employability, academic integrity, and professional practice.
Fourth, what connection does the programme have to industry, public service, research, or civic need?
A university is not only an employment agency. But if a curriculum has no credible connection to the world students are entering, it must be redesigned.
Fifth, what is the programme’s financial and academic sustainability over the next five years?
This question must be asked carefully. Some subjects may be small but nationally, regionally, professionally, or culturally important. Others may be popular today but fragile tomorrow. The answer requires judgement, not crude spreadsheet thinking.
A serious curriculum review is not a form to be completed. It is an intellectual act of leadership.
Why does AI force assessment redesign?
AI is not simply another educational technology. It changes the relationship between knowledge, production, assessment, and authenticity.
A weak institutional response would be to pretend that AI can be banned. A second weak response would be to accept AI uncritically and call every shortcut innovation. Neither is good enough.
Universities should neither panic nor surrender. They should redesign.
Assessment must move towards more authentic evidence of learning. Essays may still have value, but not if they are treated as the only serious proof of intellectual development.
Universities need more oral defence, project logs, design portfolios, laboratory notebooks, reflective evidence, simulations, live problem-solving, employer-linked briefs, viva-style checks, peer explanation, code reviews, engineering design justification, data interpretation tasks, and assessment of process as well as final output.
The real question should not only be: did the student produce an answer?
It should be: can the student explain the answer, defend the method, critique the evidence, recognise the limitation, and apply the learning in a new context?
AI may assist the student. It should not replace the student.
This is also where senior leadership is required. AI assessment reform cannot be left only to individual lecturers working late at night, armed with goodwill and a marking deadline. It needs institutional policy, staff development, workload planning, data protection, academic integrity frameworks, student guidance, and proper investment in assessment design.
Every school and faculty should have an AI curriculum and assessment map. It should identify where AI is prohibited, where it is permitted, where it is required, where students are trained to use it critically, and where human-only judgement must be demonstrated.
Mystery is not a quality-assurance method.
What does good governance require now?
Governance is where redesign becomes uncomfortable, because it is much easier to speak warmly about transformation than to make decisions about portfolio, staffing, risk, estate, partnership, and investment.
The OfS strategy for 2025 to 2030 identifies sector resilience as one of its strategic priorities, alongside quality and student experience [9]. This means governance cannot simply protect every legacy activity because it has always existed. Nor should it cut valuable subjects blindly because one-year financial data looks difficult.
Good governance now requires five disciplines.
First, financial truth. Leaders need to know the real cost and contribution of courses, schools, research activity, estates, partnerships, student support, and professional services. This must be done carefully, because crude cost-cutting can damage strategically important subjects. But avoiding the truth because it is politically difficult is not kindness. It is delayed harm.
Second, academic courage. Some subjects may be financially fragile but nationally important. Some courses may be small but central to civic mission, professional pipelines, or regional need. Other activities may be popular internally but strategically weak. The answer cannot be automatic closure or automatic protection. The answer is disciplined judgement.
Third, student protection. If courses change, close, merge, or move, students must be treated fairly and clearly. Consumer law, regulatory expectation, and basic ethics point in the same direction: do not surprise students after they have made life decisions based on institutional promises.
Fourth, staff dignity. Restructuring is sometimes necessary. But repeated restructures, vague consultation, insecure contracts, and sudden course closures can create fear, distrust, and institutional exhaustion. Universities depend on human expertise. You cannot build a strong university by treating its people as a temporary cost problem.
Fifth, strategic partnership. In the future, not every university can do everything. Some institutions will need to collaborate more seriously with further education, employers, NHS partners, local authorities, industry, international institutions, research organisations, and civic bodies.
Healthy competition will remain. But blind duplication may become increasingly expensive.
What should university leaders ask now?
If I were sitting with a university executive team, council, faculty board, or school leadership team, I would ask these questions.
What are we genuinely excellent at, and what are we pretending to be excellent at because the brochure was printed before the evidence arrived?
Which activities are academically strong but financially vulnerable, and what strategic justification exists to protect them?
Which activities are financially attractive today but strategically fragile tomorrow?
Where are we using international student income to hide structural problems in domestic teaching, research cost recovery, estate cost, or staffing models?
What would happen to our financial plan if international recruitment fell further, if postgraduate taught demand changed, or if policy shifted again?
Which curricula genuinely prepare students for AI-enabled workplaces, industrial change, net zero, public-sector transformation, and complex human problems?
Which assessments can still prove learning when AI exists?
Which research activities strengthen institutional identity and financial sustainability, and which activities are excellent but under-costed?
Are we making governance decisions early enough, or waiting until the only remaining options are rushed and painful?
Would our students, staff, employers, regulators, and communities recognise the university we describe in our strategy?
These questions are not comfortable. Good questions rarely are. But the alternative is worse: polite institutional language while the underlying model becomes weaker.
Managed decline is still decline, even when described in elegant committee language.
What is the redesign framework?
The future of UK universities should be built around six redesign priorities.
Educational purpose: universities should develop disciplined human capability, not only deliver content.
Curriculum design: programmes should be evidence-informed, industry-informed, AI-informed, and society-informed.
Assessment: universities should assess authentic learning, process, judgement, explanation, evidence use, and human capability.
Research strategy: institutions should protect excellence while understanding full economic cost, infrastructure need, and partnership potential.
Financial model: universities should recognise cross-subsidy honestly and avoid building strategy on unstable assumptions.
Governance: councils, executives, faculties, and schools should make evidence-led decisions early enough to protect quality, students, staff, and institutional purpose.
This is not pessimism. It is practical optimism.
A serious design challenge is not solved by pretending constraints do not exist. In engineering and product development, constraints often force clarity. They make us ask what matters, what works, what fails, and what must be built differently.
The same is true for universities.
Final reflection
The UK university sector is not finished. It is not a collapsing ruin. It is also not fine.
The honest position is more difficult: UK higher education remains valuable, internationally significant, intellectually powerful, and economically important, while also facing a deep structural reset.
The danger is not only financial deficit. The danger is loss of purpose.
If universities respond only by cutting, merging, delaying, and hoping for better recruitment next year, they may survive administratively but weaken educationally. That would be a poor bargain.
The opportunity is redesign.
Redesign the curriculum around disciplined human capability.
Redesign assessment around authentic learning in the age of AI.
Redesign research strategy around excellence, full cost awareness, and serious partnership.
Redesign governance around evidence, courage, student protection, and staff dignity.
Redesign the institutional portfolio around real strengths rather than inherited habits.
As a professor, engineer, researcher, inventor, teacher, and industrial leader, I see this not only as a crisis but as a design challenge.
The future of UK universities will not be secured by slogans, nostalgia, or fear. It will be secured by leaders who can ask the right questions, read the evidence honestly, protect academic purpose, redesign educational value, and connect universities more intelligently with society, industry, research, and the public good.
Our future is ideally thinking and asking the right critical questions at the right time, in the right place, under the right circumstances, and with the right inspiration.
For UK higher education, that right time is now.
References
[1] Universities UK. The economic impact of higher education, teaching, research and innovation. Published 5 September 2024. The report states that UK higher education generated more than £265 billion of economic impact and that every £1 of public money invested generated about £14 of economic benefit.
[2] Office for Students. Financial pressures and financial sustainability. The OfS financial pressures page states that, without taking mitigating action, 119 institutions, or 42.7 per cent, could report deficits in 2025–26.
[3] Universities UK. How teaching funding per student in England has changed over time. Published 24 November 2025. The analysis reports a 35 per cent real-terms decline in funding per student between 2015–16 and 2025–26, with 2025–26 funding at 64 per cent of the 2015–16 level.
[4] Higher Education Statistics Agency. Higher education student enrolments UK: 2024 to 2025. Published 27 January 2026 through GOV.UK. This official statistics release covers student enrolments and qualifications obtained by HE students at UK HE providers for the 2024–25 academic year.
[5] Home Office and UK Government. Tough government action on student visas comes into effect. Published 2 January 2024. The announcement confirms restrictions from 1 January 2024 on most international students bringing family members, with limited exceptions.
[6] UK Research and Innovation. Research financial sustainability: insights paper 2025. Published 21 March 2025. UKRI states that its policy is normally to pay 80 per cent of eligible costs on successful standard research grant applications.
[7] Competition and Markets Authority. Consumer law advice for higher education providers. Updated 31 May 2023. The CMA advises that information given to students should be accurate, clear, unambiguous, timely and available before students make study decisions.
[8] Department for Education. Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper. Published 2025. The White Paper sets out reforms to post-16 education and higher education teaching and research, including alignment with economic needs, skills gaps, growth and the effect of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence.
[9] Office for Students. OfS strategy 2025 to 2030. The strategy identifies quality, student experience and sector resilience as central areas of regulatory focus for English higher education.
[10] Quality Assurance Agency. UK Quality Code for Higher Education 2024. Published 27 June 2024. The Quality Code sets out principles for securing academic standards and assuring and enhancing quality in UK higher education.
SHARE
