Rethinking Higher Education in an AGI World: Reflections from the MINDS Workshop

With artificial intelligence (AI) developing at a rapid pace, conversations around its future impact are becoming increasingly urgent. While artificial general intelligence (AGI) — systems that could rival or exceed human-level performance across tasks — remains a highly debated concept, it cannot be dismissed as impossible. If realised, AGI would raise questions about human agency, autonomy, and control. For universities, and society more broadly, the focus must shift to understanding the implications of advanced AI systems — and how to govern them responsibly.

Higher education, rooted in human knowledge, learning, and social formation, finds itself at the centre of this emerging shift. How should universities respond if very powerful AI systems become a reality — not as distant speculation, but as a disruptive force in our professional lives?

These urgent questions formed the starting point for a recent thinking exercise that researchers from different faculties at Maastricht University engaged in together. The workshop was organised by the Maastricht Interdisciplinary Network on Digitalisation and Society (MINDS), a university-wide initiative that brings together researchers from across faculties to explore the societal impact of digitalisation and automation. As a platform that thrives on cross-disciplinary foresight and reflection, MINDS is ideally positioned to engage with the complex implications of AGI. This workshop also speaks to broader ambitions at Maastricht University: to shape a forward-looking knowledge agenda that prepares us not only for technological changes, but for the values and structures we want to uphold in their wake. The workshop marked the start of a longer conversation that will continue in other settings, including the upcoming internal workshop “AI and Machine Learning Research at SBE” on 25 June 2025, organised by the Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA) and the Department of Organisation, Strategy and Entrepreneurship (OSE).

A Cross-Faculty Scenario Workshop

On 20 March 2025, ROA hosted an interdisciplinary online workshop under the MINDS umbrella. The session brought together senior academic staff from across the university, both invited and present, including colleagues from the School of Business and Economics (SBE), the Faculty of Science and Engineering (FSE), the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASoS), the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience (FPN).

PhD candidate Nicholas Rounding kicked off the session with a fictional but plausible AGI scenario: a disembodied, software-based system with broad cognitive abilities, limited autonomy under human oversight, and centrally managed updates to ensure consistency and safety.

With this shared frame, MINDS chair dr. Marie-Christine Fregin posed a central, provocative question: Once upon a time, a specific AGI was developed, and it changed the course of higher education. But how?

Facilitated by Tobias Oertel (Zukunft Zwei, Berlin), the workshop sparked rich reflections – not just on technology, but on values, institutional structures, educational roles, and the evolving mission of the university in an AGI-driven future.

What does AGI mean for roles in higher education?

One of the first perspectives came from prof. dr. Alex Grigoriev, who reflected on how AGI could fundamentally reshape not only educational roles but the very nature of academic content. Taking mathematics education as an example, he noted that students are currently exposed to extensive materials — “roughly 100 pages of content” — filled with formulas, proofs, and problem sets. AGI, he suggested, would likely transform both the content of those 100 pages and the way in which students engage with it. Instead of passively absorbing material or mechanically solving exercises, learning would become more interactive, adaptive, and context-driven — supported by intelligent systems capable of providing instant explanations, examples, and tailored guidance.

Participants broadly agreed that many cognitive tasks — from grading and delivering factual feedback to offering routine academic advice — are likely to be delegated to AGI. In this context, the educator’s role may shift toward what prof. dr. Mark Levels described as a “facilitator of human and AI learning processes” — someone who bridges machine-generated insights with human judgment, ethical awareness, and social context. The future educator, it was suggested, will be valued less for transmitting knowledge and more for curating learning environments, supporting reflection, and nurturing the skills that AI cannot easily replicate. Prof. dr. Levels emphasised this shift by predicting a change in the academic workforce itself: “There will be fewer tutors, more coaches,” he noted, “because the cognitive reasoning tasks that tutors typically perform will increasingly be replaced by AI.”

Dr. Boris Blumberg offered a striking metaphor to capture the changing role of educators: “In some ways, the educator of the future might resemble a priest — not in the religious sense, but as someone who helps students navigate uncertainty, make sense of the world, and form shared values.” The image struck a chord with many in the room. As AGI systems increasingly take over the transmission of information, the educator’s value may lie less in content delivery and more in fostering dialogue, guiding ethical reflection, and cultivating a sense of community — roles that, precisely because they are relational and interpretive, resist automation.

What does it mean for institutions?

“Universities have long been organised around scarcity — of expertise, of information, of credentials,” said prof. dr. Darian Meacham. With this observation, he set the tone for a thought-provoking discussion on the future of academic institutions in a world increasingly shaped by AGI. “If AGI systems can provide expertise instantly, offer personalised learning, and validate knowledge through new forms of assessment,” prof. dr. Meacham continued, “then many of the traditional foundations of universities could be reshaped — or even bypassed.”

Participants discussed the risk of fragmentation, where micro-credentialing platforms and AI-driven learning ecosystems operate outside formal education structures. This could lead to a more fluid and decentralised learning landscape — but one in which universities must actively redefine their relevance. “Knowledge is then no longer embodied in teachers,” noted dr. Fregin, pointing to a deeper structural shift. As AGI systems begin to store and disseminate expertise independently of academic institutions, there is a growing liberation of institutional memory from the institutions themselves. This raises an urgent political-economic question: who now owns and extracts value from knowledge? As private platforms and AI providers take on roles once held by public institutions, knowledge risks becoming commodified — transformed into platform capital rather than a shared academic resource. At the same time, dr. Fregin highlighted the enduring importance of academic communities: not just as places for instruction, but as critical spaces for dialogue, reflection, and norm-setting. 

AGI may also bring pressure for greater efficiency and personalisation, pushing institutions to adopt customised education models with fewer tutors, dynamic curricula, and highly individualised learning paths. While such flexibility could appeal to students, it raises new concerns: How do we maintain collective educational experiences? What happens to social cohesion, peer learning, and academic culture in a system driven by tailored pathways? “If content becomes a commodity, the value of the university will increasingly lie in the experience it offers — the community, the dialogue, the sense-making that can’t be automated,” Dr. Rosine Rutten remarked. In this view, universities may need to double down on what AGI cannot replicate: spaces of encounter, critical engagement, and shared intellectual development.

What does it mean for curriculum and teaching methods?

With AGI systems increasingly able to provide instant answers and feedback, participants questioned what kinds of learning experiences will remain meaningful. Several emphasised a shift toward more process-oriented education — one that prioritises critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and ethical reasoning over rote memorisation. “Ethical and social skills will become more important, because logic will be the job of the AGI,” said prof. dr. Levels.

This change might bring about an existential crisis in higher education. If machines outperform humans in logic, analysis, and memory, what is the purpose of university education? What do we still do that is valuable - and why does it matter? “Universities will need to reclaim their role as spaces for human formation, not just information,” said prof. dr. Meacham. “It’s not just about what you know, but about who you become in the process of learning.” Dr. Rutten raised a practical yet profound question about assessment in the age of AGI: “If students can harness AI to write a thesis — how do we assess their understanding?” She advocated for oral examinations as one way forward, where educators can “directly engage students to probe their critical thinking, reasoning, and ability to connect ideas.”

Others highlighted the enduring value of ambiguity, interpretation, and moral complexity — areas where human judgment still holds sway. “Machines can simulate logic, but they can’t navigate meaning in the same way we do,” argued dr. Blumberg. “That’s where the university remains indispensable — as a place to wrestle with uncertainty.”

Dr. Diederik de Boer pointed out that AGI will carry out tasks with speed and precision, but without discernment or emotional resonance. “AGI will just do what you ask it to do. But humans assign value — we decide what matters,” he said. “Professors still get enthusiastic about ideas, they care, they argue, they inspire. That emotional investment is part of what makes education meaningful.”

Rather than resist AGI, many participants proposed integrating it into pedagogical design - not as a threat, but as a partner. Teaching could evolve into a collaborative process between students, educators, and intelligent systems, one in which the why of education becomes just as important as the how.

A Pause for Reflection and a Starting Point for Dialogue

While views varied, one point of consensus emerged: AGI forces a reframing of what higher education is for. It reveals hidden assumptions and creates a space to think differently - not just about tools, but about values, norms, and the futures we hope to build.

By grounding the discussion in a fictional yet plausible narrative, the workshop enabled a safe but provocative space to surface tacit beliefs and institutional blind spots. In doing so, it provided a cross-disciplinary moment of pause: an invitation to think not just about what education is, but why it matters - and who it serves - in a rapidly changing digital society.

As MINDS continues to explore the intersections of digitalisation, automation, and society, we hope this experiment in speculative foresight helps catalyse deeper dialogue across UM and beyond.