I am delighted to report that most if not all panel discussions and keynote speakers addressed all of these questions head-on and with truly different perspectives. In terms of defining value, we learned from academic administrators, research heads and industry thought leaders that value is no longer thought of solely in investment or “ROI” terms. Instead, students are valuing time-to-skills-attainment, and parents are measuring time-to-employment. Employers are measuring fit-for-purpose in terms of job readiness of graduates, and institutions, themselves, are measuring the value of university-commercial partnerships more and more as public funding becomes tighter.

In looking at these new and different measurements of value, industry professionals reminded us of new data collection and assessment tools—often powered by AI—can quickly give us “reads” on how well our supply of higher educations is mapping to and matching with the ever-changing “demand curves” in our various local and global markets. QS leaders even showed us how we can create partnerships - with others up and down the rankings lists - in real time to reinforce the value that our institutions can bring to future researchers, students, employers, and other market participants.

And while we are talking about ever-changing demand patterns from parents, students, labour markets and government ministries, many of our government and industry leaders spoke up about necessary, and rapid, changes that will be essential to properly meet these demand changes over time.

AI was a common theme, of course, but so were others such as looking at student flows, the changing demographics and psychographics of job markets around the world, and how “portable” students are becoming in terms of international education and of quick skill-building through not just courses but also on-the-job internships and apprentice programs.

All of these themes build toward a common conclusion: we as higher education leaders, industry thought-partners and government policymakers have to get ahead of these demand trends so we can better position our institutions—including our faculty, programmes, curricula, degree- and non-degree programmes—to fit future needs… not just the needs of today. And admittedly, this is not easy for most institutions of higher learning.

Enter AI. While AI was again a constant theme among many of the answers proffered by speakers to the questions above, I was glad to see that most if not all referred to it as an enabler of value, not only a creator of it. AI is still a tool—and a non-standard one that is constantly “learning” at that—and one that we can control in terms of how it’s built, used, deployed and supported in our educational systems. Interestingly, our 2024 Summit in Washington, DC, was focused on AI as a tool… but this year, happily, we pivoted our focus a bit on how to use AI as an enabler of a better educational paradigm, not just another learning management system add-on or data collection tool to implement at a purely systems level.

So where does all of this leave us as we leave the “little red dot” that is Singapore? Hopefully it leaves us with new perspectives of what we do and how we do it… as well as a new-found sense of importance about who we are and what role we play in society as sustainable educators, teachers, and administrators.

Data with no context does not help us learn or teach just like photographs with no captions tell no stories. In the words of Steve Jobs, “Facts tell, but stories sell.” And as we rethink our roles as sellers of stories instead of collectors of facts, I continue to be so impressed and so proud of the work we are doing in higher education … in a truly global and sustainable collaborative community.