“AI is changing education fundamentally”

15.12.2025 FutureU

AI is rapidly changing how we work, learn and do research. This also presents a challenge for universities. The UZH think tank FutureU has developed future scenarios for universities in the digital age. We met with professor of medicine Claudia Witt and political scientist Karsten Donnay to find out what universities will need to do in the future, and how they should position themselves.

Interview: Thomas Gull and Roger Nickl; Translation: Michael Jackson

Categories

• Digital Transformation
• Magazin
• AI

Committed to the university of the future: Claudia Witt and Karsten Donnay in the UZH faculty building. (Image: Stefan Walter)

If we just use AI simply because it's available instead of integrating it in a purposeful way, we'll lose agency over our actions.

How are you dealing with this dynamic at the University of Zurich?

Donnay: We're also seeing great uncertainty here. Students are asking themselves: what's allowed? What's ethically acceptable? That's why our faculty has developed clear guidelines to promote transparency. And we as a department have also drawn up very specific recommendations for our teaching staff. Students should disclose whether they've used AI - to proofread text or analyze data, for example. It's not about banning AI, but using it responsibly. We teach how to use these tools critically: where do they really help? Where do they create problems? We're learning as we go along. The teaching staff are also experimenting - for example, they're using AI to help them prepare teaching materials, but it's always the human being who bears ultimate responsibility.

Witt: I have a similar view. We're all currently learning. What's important is that we give students and teaching staff the freedom they need to be able to experiment so that innovation isn't stifled by rules that are too rigid. But at the same time, there also need to be ethical guardrails to safeguard quality and integrity.

What is UZH's basic stance on how AI should be used?

Donnay: We're taking a pragmatic approach. The reality is that over 90 percent of students are already using AI. Banning it isn't a realistic option. Instead, we're setting the stage by explaining what's allowed, what isn't, and how you can work with it responsibly. At the same time, we're gaining experience and constantly adapting the rules.

UZH's Digital Strategy Board has now established FutureU, a think tank that focuses on the role of the university in the digital age. You were involved with its first position paper. The core idea is to actively shape the way AI is used. What do you want to achieve with this?

Witt: With this think tank, we've created a place where we can consciously reflect on the future - beyond day-to-day operations. We don't just want to respond to developments; we want to actively shape them. The position paper is a first step. It's intended to provide some guidance and highlight where the university can have an impact. We're keen to encourage the community to ask themselves how we want to shape both research and teaching as we look far into the future. We're using futurology methods to develop scenarios that represent well-founded visions.

What are the challenges that universities face, and what role will they play in the future?

Witt: AI is fundamentally changing the education landscape. Knowledge is no longer exclusive. You can already learn lots of things online, including through commercial platforms. In the future, AI tools will also increasingly generate learning content. Research is also no longer taking place only at universities, with more and more companies now having their own research centers. This means the role of universities is changing.

Donnay: In some areas, industry already leads the way - for example, in the development of AI technologies. Universities have fewer resources and smaller teams. Our advantage is the depth of our academia, reflection and critical thinking. We're a safeguard for the quality and credibility of knowledge. Degrees and certifications still carry significant prestige - but even this may change if labor markets place increasing emphasis on practical skills.

So what will the university's special value be in the future?

Witt: The university's strengths include its range of disciplines working together and the link between research and teaching. We can look at complex topics from different perspectives and work on them in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary way. Especially in the age of AI, this breadth will be more important than ever. We learn from doing research and research by teaching - this is a unique selling point that companies just don't have.

Donnay: The big issues in society can only be solved by adopting an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach. At UZH, people from very different disciplines work together. Such collaborations are essential if we want to truly understand complex phenomena. This requires not just knowledge, but also the ability to speak the language of other disciplines.

Witt: This is why it's so important that we have structures like the School for Transdisciplinary Studies, where students study and conduct research in a transdisciplinary way. It shows that people at UZH have understood how crucial transdisciplinary thinking is for the future. If you just stick to your own discipline, you won't be able to meet the challenges of the future.

In the FutureU position paper, you've developed scenarios for 2050. Where will we be 25 years from now?

Witt: The world will be barely recognizable 25 years from now. Technology will be everywhere, fundamentally changing the way we access knowledge. By then, we may be linked directly to information sources, with our thinking then merging to a certain extent with data streams. At the same time, robotics will be a staple feature in many areas of life - in care, industry or research. This will change the labor market massively: many routine activities will disappear, and new professions will emerge. Research itself will also change. If it's influenced too heavily by industrial interests, there's a danger that the social perspective will be overlooked. Universities must therefore be given the space to conduct research that doesn't have to be ripe for economic exploitation straight away.
In teaching, immersive, interactive learning environments will be commonplace. Students will work with their own personal AI mentor - AI buddies - who will support their own individual learning. Our role will be to promote a critically reflective approach to knowledge - this will still be the key skill to have in the future.

The reality is that over 90 percent of students are already using AI. Banning it isn't a realistic option.

In the position paper, you view the university as a "trustworthy institution," as a center of trust for society. Why is trust so important for universities?

Witt: Trust is the bedrock of any academic institution. It's a reciprocal thing: an institution must act credibly, and society must be prepared to place its trust in it. Historically, universities were considered bastions of reliability and expertise. We need to breathe new life into this image in the digital age. Surveys conducted on digitalization topics reveal that people's trust in universities remains high - significantly higher than it is in industry. This is because we're not driven by profit and embrace diversity. It's this very openness to discussing different perspectives that forms a key element of trustworthiness.

Donnay: Trust is also linked to the role of science in society. If research is skewed too heavily toward economic interests, there's a risk that the long-term questions won't be explored: what really benefits society? Where do undesirable developments occur? This is where the critical role of universities comes in. Our role is not just to produce knowledge, but also to question developments - and make clear what consequences they may have. This critical detachment remains essential. Politicians and the public need reliable, independent partners that can provide guidance. Universities should initiate debates, open up spaces for critical thinking and bring together different perspectives.

How is the relationship changing with big tech companies like Google and other firms that invest heavily in research themselves?

Witt: The big tech companies will continue to expand their dominance. They have vast resources and volumes of data at their disposal - and this is only set to increase in the coming decades. Nevertheless, it's important for universities to retain their independent role. It's sensible and often necessary to cooperate, but this needs to be on an equal footing. What makes universities so strong is that they pursue issues that are relevant to society - without having a primarily economic focus. We can allow ourselves to engage in research with an open mind as to the outcome. At the same time, we need dialogue with the business community so we can work together to shape the future.

Donnay: There's a lively level of engagement between the university and industry anyway. Researchers move to companies and back again - knowledge circulates. This is so valuable because it helps everyone to learn more. It's also vital for universities to fulfill their educational mandate. Most of our graduates don't go on to work in research, but in many different roles in business, politics and wider society. If they take critical thinking, a reflective approach to data and ethical responsibility with them into these roles, they'll have a relevant impact on these areas. So teaching isn't just about training people to do a job, but is a school of thought - and that's why it has a lasting impact on society.

You mentioned the openness of science. What exactly does this mean for trust?

Witt: Openness is a key pillar of scientific credibility. Open science means making methods, data and results transparent so that other researchers can review them, understand them and also make use of them for further research. Open science makes research verifiable and enhances its quality. This is what distinguishes us from research in the private sector, where lots of things aren't accessible.

Isn't it a little naive to view the university as a trustworthy institution and as a critical sparring partner for business and society? These are liberal ideals that have long been taken for granted. In the US, they're currently being fundamentally challenged. Isn't it conceivable that there will no longer be any demand for the independent expertise of universities in the future?

Donnay: There's certainly a risk of that. In our future scenarios, we also discussed these kinds of developments - right through to the question of whether governments still want to promote independent research at all. In the US, we're seeing these trends toward the political marginalization of critical science. This shows that independent, open universities can't be taken for granted. This is precisely why we must take active steps to ensure that our role is still recognized - politically, socially and institutionally. We need to make it clear why free research is absolutely essential for democracy and progress.

Witt: This isn't just an end in itself. Universities are important because they're a safeguard for diversity and the public good. They also provide space for minority positions and enable society to reflect on itself. In Switzerland, there's a high level of trust in universities, and I'm optimistic that we can maintain this level.

What comes next after the position paper?

Witt: The think tank remains active. We're currently focusing even more on trustworthiness and will then be exploring the skills that researchers and teaching staff will need in the future. Next year, we want to hold another future workshop to work out specific scenarios for what a university might look like in the digital age.

Donnay: At the same time, we're linking this work to other initiatives - such as UZH's AI strategy. Research, teaching and digitalization need to be considered as a whole. We'll engage with other universities, collect best practices and apply them to our structures. It's important to combine short-term measures with long-term perspectives. In one or two years, we want to be in a position where we can actively shape technological developments - without losing our students. That's because if they sense that the university is lagging behind reality, we'll lose our relevance.

How open is the university itself to this change?

Donnay: In recent years, UZH has shown that cultural change is possible - the Digital Society Initiative involving more than 1,400 researchers is a good example of this. It demonstrated that cooperation, openness and common goals are the foundation for successfully shaping the digital transformation.

Witt: I'm seeing a lot of openness to boldly trying something new - while still maintaining critical thinking. My view is that we'll still be a relevant, credible institution in 2050 if we expand our unique attributes and actively help shape the future.

Interview: Thomas Gull and Roger Nickl; Translation: Michael Jackson

FutureU: Universities in the Digital Age

UZH.ai

Personal profiles