Generative AI is collapsing weeks of student work into minutes, prompting calls for a radical rethink of higher education’s purpose. Writing in Times Higher Education, Ioannis Glinavos describes how tasks such as designing a water filter for refugee camps can now be prototyped in seconds, forcing universities to reconsider what they teach and how they assess.
Research cited in Frontiers in Education frames prompt engineering as a distinct literacy, warning that quality depends on critical, iterative prompting and that blind trust risks errors. Advocates argue for embedding prompt craft across curricula and for studio-style pedagogy that emphasises visible iteration, critique and interdisciplinary problem-solving.
Assessment is emerging as a fault line. Jisc identifies three approaches: restrict AI use, redesign tasks to be AI-resistant, or integrate AI into learning. Glinavos argues for the latter, suggesting students should be assessed on both AI-assisted artefacts and reflective design logs that reveal their judgement and process.
The role of lecturers is also shifting. Rather than content delivery, academics are urged to act as “creative directors” — curating debate, modelling intellectual risk and teaching students to interrogate machine outputs. That transformation will require significant staff training and time for curriculum redesign.
International analysis reinforces the case. A World Economic Forum briefing highlights creativity, critical thinking and ethical judgement as the “uniquely human” skills employers must prioritise in an AI-augmented economy. UK policy bodies and funders are urged to support digital infrastructure, fellowships for pedagogic innovation, and clear national guidance on assessment that balances integrity with innovation.
Risks remain. Studies stress the dangers of hallucinations, cost pressures on departments, unequal access to AI tools and the possibility that students may bypass universities in favour of faster, cheaper routes to market. But supporters see a chance to forge a new contract with students and employers: universities as the place where imagination, critical prompting and ethical navigation are taught as core literacies.
The optimistic imperative, advocates argue, is to turn AI from a threat into a launch pad for responsible innovation. “Ask your cohort what problem they have always wanted to solve,” Glinavos advises. “Then make the first assignment turning that answer into a prototype.” For universities willing to adapt, that shift could place the UK at the forefront of creative, human-centred higher education in the AI age.
Created by Amplify: AI-augmented, human-curated content.