UK business schools continue to be buffeted by hostile immigration policies, with some institutions noting two consecutive years of declining overseas enrolments, according to 2025/26 results from the 2025 Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS) annual membership survey of 48 members.
But the picture seems to be improving. Almost half of the schools surveyed (46%) reported an increase in international enrolments, up from just 11% the previous year. At undergraduate level, 45% reported rising numbers, compared with 64% at postgraduate level.
Nevertheless, the association has pointed to policies affecting international students in the UK as continuing causes for concern for business schools as promises made in Keir Starmer’s immigration white paper become a reality.
While international enrolments at the undergraduate level were down on 2024/25 for 14% of respondents, this is far lower than the 39% who reported the same trend in 2024/25.
Similarly, while a sizeable chunk of respondents (39%) said overseas enrolments for postgraduate students were down year on year, this is still a noticeable improvement than over three quarters of respondents the year before.
But the Chartered ABS noted that international enrolments will still be lower than before 2024/25, with some schools reporting two years of decline in a row.
The Chartered ABS pointed to hostile policies in the UK as a potential reason for declining international enrolments. The UK government’s decision to reduce the Graduate Route by six months is already having an effect, it said, with 60% of survey respondents saying the incoming policy has had a negative impact.
“The shortening of the Graduate Route, the ban on student dependants, and the proposals for the international student levy will continue to have a damaging impact on business school finances, and by extension, their parent institutions,” warned Stewart Robinson, chair of the Chartered ABS and dean of Newcastle University Business School.
“These results reveal that while some institutions are seeing student numbers grow and finances stabilise, many institutions continue to face significant challenges. Budget cuts, restructuring, and redundancies will continue, and many business schools will face another year of declining student numbers and income,” he added.
The survey revealed that many UK business schools are feeling the pinch, with an increasing number (48%) reporting a drop in year-on-year income in 2025/26 compared to 36% in 2024/25.
Budget cuts, restructuring, and redundancies will continue, and many business schools will face another year of declining student numbers and income Stewart Robinson, Chartered ABS and Newcastle University Business School
However, more than half of the schools surveyed (58%) said they expected income to increase in 2025/26 – an improvement on the previous year, when more than half expected further decline.
A slew of policies affecting the international education sector were announced as part of the immigration white paper, with stakeholders concerned that each could have a serious impact on overseas enrolments.
The government has decided to cut the Graduate Route from two years to just 18 months, shaving six months off the visa route for international graduates from UK institutions.
A levy on the income institutions make from international student fees was also announced as part of the changes, with a later decision to ringfence this cash to spend on maintenance grants for domestic students. Critics have warned that the move could decimate international enrolments if students are put off by the higher fees many institutions will have to set to cover the cost of the tax.
An earlier decision to ban almost all international students from bringing their dependants to the country with them on a student visa. Since 2024, when the policy was announced, net migration numbers in the UK have seen a steep decline.
As part of its plan to grow the international education sector — which includes doubling its contribution to $7.2 billion and increasing international enrolments to 119,000 by 2034 — New Zealand has introduced new immigration changes.
The changes extend in-study work rights to all tertiary students on approved exchange or study abroad programs and clarify that most students who change providers or lower their study level will need a new visa.
Apart from these, eligible tertiary students in post-school education, such as universities and polytechnics, and secondary students in Years 12-13 can now work up to 25 hours a week. Secondary students will continue to require parental and school approval for in-study work.
The increased limit applies to all new visas granted from November 3, even if the application was submitted earlier.
Moreover, students already holding visas with a 20-hour work limit will need to reapply, either through a variation of conditions or by obtaining a new study visa, to access the increased allowance.
Stakeholders have noted the importance of making sure that the relaxed rules do not result in students being exploited for low-paid or exploitative work.
The increase to in-study work rights comes at a time when New Zealand has 40,987 study visa holders eligible to work, with 29,790 of those visas expiring on or before 31 March 2026 and 11,197 after.
The New Zealand government says the change will make the country “more competitive globally” and improve the overall student experience, at a time when international student satisfaction remains strong at 87%.
“International students make a significant contribution to the economy, with each student spending around $45,000 on average in 2024 – supporting local businesses, tourism, and job creation,” Jeannie Melville, deputy COO for immigration at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, told The PIE News.
“As part of the International Education Going for Growth Plan, changes were announced to immigration settings to support sustainable growth and enhance New Zealand’s appeal as a study destination. These changes aim to maintain education quality while managing immigration risk.”
International students have the same minimum employment rights as any other worker, including being paid at least the minimum wage and working within visa conditions Jeannie Melville, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
The rise in working hours is a “confidence signal” that will help with living costs and shows that New Zealand is welcoming, according to Frank Xing, director of marketing and operations at Auckland-based Novo Education Consulting.
But authorities are still expected to keep a close eye on the changes amid past concerns of international students working long hours for below-minimum wages, being denied sick leave, and struggling to find jobs.
The New Zealand government has taken steps to address workplace exploitation in the past, including launching the multilingual Introduction to Your Employment Rights module to help migrant workers understand their agreements and rights.
“International students have the same minimum employment rights as any other worker, including being paid at least the minimum wage and working within visa conditions. Exploitation, such as underpayment or forcing excessive hours, is a criminal offence under the Immigration Act and we do act against employers who exploit workers.
“Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has strengthened protections for migrant workers, including the Worker Protection Act that took effect in January 2024,” Melville said, adding that this allows authorities to issue infringement notices, publish the names of non-compliant employers, and stop them from supporting migrant visa applications for a period.
“We have also tightened visa settings and improved monitoring to reduce exploitation risks.”
According to ex and current international students The PIE spoke with, employers often pushed them to work beyond the weekly hour limit, and while students tried to balance extra hours by reducing them later or carrying them into holiday periods, any overtime during term time was usually unpaid until the breaks.
Some students also alleged mistreatment or harsh behaviour at their workplaces, though experiences varied by employer.
Despite these concerns, Melville noted that students can report any instances of exploitation by calling Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111, which she described as “a confidential and safe way to make a report”.
According to Xing, the changes in working hours don’t replace core factors like academic fit, career pathways, and post-study visas that drive student applications but they will help international students avoid situations where they can be taken advantage of.
“Extending legal working hours should also reduce the temptation to accept low-paid, cash-in-hand jobs. Of course, vigilance is still needed,” he said.
He called for better student education on their employment rights, as well as stronger penalties for employers who break the rules and easier reporting channels for students.
“It’s early days since the rule took effect – around 10 days – but we’re already seeing more enquiries mentioning ‘25 hours’ alongside programme and city choice, especially as other destinations tighten settings,” Xing added, noting that current international students have also requested help from their Licensed Immigration Advisers to apply for a variation of conditions to move from 20 to 25 hours.
It’s early days since the rule took effect – around 10 days – but we’re already seeing more enquiries mentioning ‘25 hours’ alongside programme and city choice, especially as other destinations tighten settings Frank Xing, Novo Education Consulting
The increase to 25 hours per week isn’t limited to students. New Zealand has also extended part-time work rights to dependent child visitor visa holders and skilled Migrant Category Interim visa holders.
The move comes as a record number of New Zealanders leave amid a weakening economy, with relaxed migrant work rules seen as a way to fill workforce gaps and support students’ transition into future employment.
“In certain professions, like healthcare, the number of hours of relevant work experience is a very important factor – it can directly affect your employability and career progression,” stated Vijeta Kanwar, director of operations, New Zealand Gateway.
“For example, some job vacancies specify that a candidate must have 100 or even 500 hours of work experience. In that context, gaining five extra hours a week over a year can significantly increase the total experience a student has, enhancing their opportunities when pursuing post-study work.”
“We’ve seen more enthusiasm from students, especially those looking to gain international work experience. They’re quite excited because, in many professions, the number of hours of work experience you gain, especially if it’s linked to your intended career, has huge importance.”
Just in June this year, New Zealand announced that degree holders from countries including India, France, Germany, Italy, Sri Lanka, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland can now bypass the qualification assessment process for certain immigration categories.
Subject to New Zealand’s cabinet discussions, the government is also set to introduce a new short-term work visa for some vocational graduates and streamline visa processes, according to INZ.
Former University of Virginia president Jim Ryan has broken his silence concerning his abrupt resignation, accusing the Board of Visitors of dishonesty and complicity in his ouster, which came amid federal government scrutiny over the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
In a 12-page letter to the UVA Faculty Senate on Friday, Ryan wrote that he was “stunned and angry” over the board’s lack of honesty as it faced pressure from the federal government to force him out due to an alleged failure to dismantle DEI initiatives. Ryan also wrote that recent letters by UVA rector Rachel Sheridan and Governor Glenn Youngkin do not “present an accurate accounting of my resignation,” which prompted him to release his own statement.
Inside Higher Ed has uploaded Ryan’s full letter below.
Ryan’s letter follows a message Sheridan sent to the UVA Faculty Senate on Thursday. In that letter, Sheridan downplayed the pressure from the federal government to force Ryan out. While she acknowledged that the Department of Justice “lacked confidence in President Ryan to make the changes that the Trump Administration believed were necessary to ensure compliance,” she disputed the notion that his resignation was part of the agreement that the university recently reached with the federal government to pause investigations into DEI practices.
The full text of that letter is available below.
Also on Thursday, Youngkin sent a letter related to Ryan’s departure to Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger, who has called for UVA to halt its ongoing presidential search until her board picks are in place. The Republican governor pushed back on his Democratic successor’s claims that Ryan was ousted as a result of federal overreach and accused her of interfering in the search. Youngkin also accused Ryan of “not being committed to following federal law.”
That letter has been uploaded in full below.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
On November 26 dozens of articles written by News Decoder students will go to a panel of three judges as part of our twice-yearly storytelling competition. One of the criteria they will use to decide on the winners is this: Did the student report the story objectively, without bias? It is one of five criteria (another being total subjectivity on the part of each judge — sometimes a story is just a really great story).
Here is the question: How does one define bias? You’d think I’d be able to answer this question easily, since I’ve written whole articles on objectivity, which is commonly thought of as the absence of bias. Webster’s Dictionary defines bias as an inclination of temperament or outlook, or an instance of such prejudice.
Basically, you are for something or against something. A problem with trying to eliminate bias is often we don’t recognize when we lean more one way or another. If something is true it is true, right? How can truth be biased? But how many ridiculous arguments revolve around competing definitions of truth?
News Decoder correspondent Enock Wanderema is an experienced journalist but he’s currently studying behavioral science. Two things he’s been thinking about are what is known as availability bias and confirmation bias.
Availability bias is our tendency to rely on what we can remember. If we can remember it, it seems more important or more true. That leads to us raising importance stuff that recently happened since we remember it more easily.
With confirmation bias, we tend to search for, interpret and remember information that confirms what we already believe and we overlook anything that contradicts those beliefs.
“This happens automatically because constantly questioning everything we believe would be cognitively exhausting,” he wrote. “It means we can become trapped in false beliefs even when contradictory evidence accumulates and this matters enormously in contexts that are complex, novel, abstract or ideologically loaded; exactly the kinds of situations modern life presents constantly, but which were rare in ancestral environments.”
Bias in journalism
This becomes more problematic when we talk about journalists. “Journalists are the primary gatekeepers of information about complex issues people cannot directly experience but journalists are humans with the same biases,” Wanderema said.
These biases come into play with the stories reporters or news organizations choose to cover or not cover. They inadvertently rely on what they remember and are familiar with when deciding if something is important enough to cover and deciding the events and people to ignore.
This can lead to whole populations of people made invisible and important events ignored. If something has been happening and no one has covered it, how important can it be?
News Decoder Correspondent Paul Sochaczewski struggles with the idea of bias not only with news stories but in writing non-fiction biographies of people long dead. “All journalism has bias,” he wrote. “Point of view, word choice, selection of details, who to quote and accuracy of that quote and so on.”
In a 300-page book you can’t tell someone’s whole life story, but in summing up the life it is the biographer who decides what events are important and which ones paint the most accurate portrait of a person. It is the biographer who decides what to leave out.
A picture of reality
In some ways bias in storytelling is like the decisions a photographer makes in taking a photo. How many photos taken of me made me look awful? And yet there were a few that made me look better than I generally do. It had to do with the lighting available at the time and the photographer’s desire to make me look good.
The photographer isn’t making anything up but by adjusting where I stand, what’s around me, how my hair falls — and having the sun on my face the right way, she can change my look from an old hag who just woke up in a terrible mood to a beautiful person in the prime of her life.
News Decoder Correspondent Barry Moody says that you show bias when you lean towards one side or the other, either in the way you present the information or in giving more space to one side of an argument. Instead, you should present the facts and let your readers decide whether they have an opinion. “But don’t allow your own, either consciously or subconsciously to intrude,” he said.
Kirby Moss, a professor of journalism and mass communication at the California Polytechnic University Humboldt in California sees bias as the inability or lack of awareness to critique your own perspective.
That goes back to the notion of objectivity being the absence of bias. It is difficult to eliminate our own bias if we don’t recognize it in the first place.
Wanderema said that our biases are often mental shortcuts that allow us to process the too much information we are constantly bombarded with, most of it from media rather than from direct experience. We pay attention to some things but not others. We are skeptical of some facts but easily accept others.
“The result is a complex feedback loop where journalists’ biases shape coverage, coverage triggers audience biases, audience preferences reinforce journalistic practices and the entire system systematically distorts public understanding of reality,” Wanderema said. “Not through deliberate deception, but through the predictable operation of cognitive shortcuts that evolved to help humans navigate immediate physical environments.”
Personally, in addressing the thorny problem of bias, I rely on what I have long decided should be the first rule of journalism: honesty. When reporting, I try to lay out facts as I’ve discovered them, after making a genuine effort to explore different perspectives and sides. But as Moss explained, it is important that I explore my own perspective so that I can then fess up to readers my own biases and conclusions. This lets them know where I stand so that they can accept or reject the conclusions I’ve made.
In trying to eliminate our biases, we end up deceiving not just our readers, but ourselves.
Questions to consider:
1. What is confirmation bias?
2. In what ways can personal bias affect what stories you choose to tell?
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
How well did you keep up with this week’s developments in K-12 education? To find out, take our five-question quiz below. Then, share your score by tagging us on social media with #K12DivePopQuiz.
For Generation Z, the old story of social mobility—study hard, go to college, work your way up—has lost its certainty. The class divide that once seemed bridgeable through education now feels entrenched, as debt, precarious work, and economic volatility blur the promise of progress.
The new economy—dominated by artificial intelligence, speculative assets like cryptocurrency, and inflated housing markets—has not delivered stability for most. Instead, it’s widened gaps between those who own and those who owe. Many young Americans feel locked out of wealth-building entirely. Some have turned to riskier bets—digital assets, gig work, or start-ups powered by AI tools—to chase opportunities that traditional institutions no longer provide. Others have succumbed to despair. Suicide rates among young adults have climbed sharply in recent years, correlating with financial stress, debt, and social isolation.
And echoing through this uncertain landscape is a song that first rose from the coalfields of Kentucky during the Great Depression—Florence Reece’s 1931 protest hymn, “Which Side Are You On?”
Come all you good workers,
Good news to you I’ll tell,
Of how the good old union
Has come in here to dwell.
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Nearly a century later, those verses feel newly urgent—because Gen Z is again being forced to pick a side: between solidarity and survival, between reforming a broken system or resigning themselves to it.
The Class Divide and the Broken Ladder
Despite record levels of education, Gen Z faces limited social mobility. College remains a class marker, not an equalizer. Students from affluent families attend better-funded universities, graduate on time, and often receive help with housing or job placement. Working-class and first-generation students, meanwhile, navigate under-resourced campuses, heavier debt, and weaker professional networks.
The Pew Research Center found that first-generation college graduates have nearly $100,000 less in median wealth than peers whose parents also hold degrees. For many, the degree no longer guarantees a secure foothold in the middle class—it simply delays financial independence.
They say in Harlan County,
There are no neutrals there,
You’ll either be a union man,
Or a thug for J. H. Blair.
The metaphor still fits: there are no neutrals in the modern class struggle over debt, housing, and automation.
Debt, Doubt, and the New Normal
Gen Z borrowers owe an average of around $23,000 in student loans, a figure growing faster than any other generation’s debt load. Over half regret taking on those loans. Many delay buying homes, having children, or even seeking medical care. Those who drop out without degrees are burdened with debt and little to show for it.
The debt-based model has become a defining feature of American life—especially for the working class. The price of entry to a better future is borrowing against one’s own.
Don’t scab for the bosses,
Don’t listen to their lies,
Us poor folks haven’t got a chance
Unless we organize.
If Reece’s song once called miners to unionize against coal barons, its spirit now calls borrowers, renters, adjuncts, and gig workers to collective resistance against financial systems that profit from their precarity.
AI and the Erosion of Work
Artificial intelligence promises efficiency, but it also threatens to hollow out the entry-level job market Gen Z depends on. Automation in journalism, design, law, and customer service cuts off rungs of the career ladder just as young workers reach for them.
While elite graduates may move into roles that supervise or profit from AI, working-class Gen Zers are more likely to face displacement. AI amplifies the class divide: it rewards those who already have capital, coding skills, or connections—and sidelines those who don’t.
Crypto Dreams and Financial Desperation
Locked out of traditional wealth paths, many young people turned to cryptocurrency during the pandemic. Platforms like Robinhood and Coinbase promised quick gains and independence from the “rigged” economy. But when crypto markets crashed in 2022, billions in speculative wealth evaporated. Some who had borrowed or used student loan refunds to invest lost everything.
Online forums chronicled not only the financial losses but also the psychological fallout—stories of panic, shame, and in some tragic cases, suicide. The new “digital gold rush” became another mechanism for transferring wealth upward.
The Real Estate Wall
While digital markets rise and fall, real estate remains the ultimate symbol of exclusion. Home prices have climbed over 40 percent since 2020, while mortgage rates hover near 8 percent. For most of Gen Z, ownership is out of reach.
Older generations built equity through housing; Gen Z rents indefinitely, enriching landlords and institutional investors. Without intergenerational help, the “starter home” has become a myth. In America’s new class order, those who inherit property inherit mobility.
Despair and the Silent Crisis
Behind the data lies a mental health emergency. The CDC reports that suicide among Americans aged 10–24 has risen nearly 60 percent in the past decade. Economic precarity, debt, housing insecurity, and climate anxiety all contribute.
Therapists describe “financial trauma” as a defining condition for Gen Z—chronic anxiety rooted in systemic instability. Universities respond with mindfulness workshops, but few confront the deeper issue: a society that privatized risk and monetized hope.
They say in Harlan County,
There are no neutrals there—
Which side are you on, my people,
Which side are you on?
The question lingers like a challenge to policymakers, educators, and investors alike.
A Two-Tier Future
Today’s economy is splitting into two distinct realities:
The secure class, buffered by family wealth, education, AI-driven income, and real estate assets.
The precarious class, burdened by loans, high rents, unstable work, and psychological strain.
The supposed democratization of opportunity through technology and education has in practice entrenched a new feudalism—one coded in algorithms and contracts instead of coal and steel.
Repairing the System, Not the Student
For Generation Z, the American Dream has become a high-interest loan. Education, technology, and financial innovation—once tools of liberation—now function as instruments of control.
Reforming higher education is necessary, but not sufficient. The deeper work lies in redistributing power: capping predatory interest rates, investing in affordable housing, curbing speculative bubbles, ensuring that AI’s gains benefit labor as well as capital, and confronting the mental health crisis that shadows all of it.
Florence Reece’s song endures because its question has never been answered—only updated. As Gen Z stands at the intersection of debt and digital capitalism, that question rings louder than ever:
Which side are you on?
Sources
Florence Reece, “Which Side Are You On?” (1931).
Pew Research Center, “First-Generation College Graduates Lag Behind Their Peers on Key Economic Outcomes,” 2021.
Dēmos, The Debt Divide: How Student Debt Impacts Opportunities for Black and White Borrowers, 2016.
EducationData.org, “Student Loan Debt by Generation,” 2024.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Gen Z Student Debt and Wealth Data Brief, 2022.
CNBC, “Gen Z vs. Their Parents: How the Generations Stack Up Financially,” 2024.
WUSF, “Generation Z’s Net Worth Is Being Undercut by College Debt,” 2024.
Newsweek, “Student Loan Update: Gen Z Hit with Highest Payments,” 2024.
The Kaplan Group, “How Student Debt Is Locking Millennials and Gen Z Out of Homeownership,” 2024.
CDC, Suicide Mortality in the United States, 2001–2022, National Center for Health Statistics, 2023.
Brookings Institution, “The Impact of AI on Labor Markets: Inequality and Automation,” 2024.
CNBC, “Crypto Crash Wipes Out Billions in Investor Wealth, Gen Z Most Exposed,” 2023.
Zillow, “U.S. Housing Affordability Reaches Lowest Point Since 1989,” 2024.
AI is now at the center of almost every conversation in education technology. It is reshaping how we create content, build assessments, and support learners. The opportunities are enormous. But one quiet risk keeps growing in the background: losing our habit of critical thinking.
I see this risk not as a theory but as something I have felt myself.
The moment I almost outsourced my judgment
A few months ago, I was working on a complex proposal for a client. Pressed for time, I asked an AI tool to draft an analysis of their competitive landscape. The output looked polished and convincing. It was tempting to accept it and move on.
Then I forced myself to pause. I began questioning the sources behind the statements and found a key market shift the model had missed entirely. If I had skipped that short pause, the proposal would have gone out with a blind spot that mattered to the client.
That moment reminded me that AI is fast and useful, but the responsibility for real thinking is still mine. It also showed me how easily convenience can chip away at judgment.
AI as a thinking partner
The most powerful way to use AI is to treat it as a partner that widens the field of ideas while leaving the final call to us. AI can collect data in seconds, sketch multiple paths forward, and expose us to perspectives we might never consider on our own.
In my own work at Magic EdTech, for example, our teams have used AI to quickly analyze thousands of pages of curriculum to flag accessibility issues. The model surfaces patterns and anomalies that would take a human team weeks to find. Yet the real insight comes when we bring educators and designers together to ask why those patterns matter and how they affect real classrooms. AI sets the table, but we still cook the meal.
There is a subtle but critical difference between using AI to replace thinking and using it to stretch thinking. Replacement narrows our skills over time. Stretching builds new mental flexibility. The partner model forces us to ask better questions, weigh trade-offs, and make calls that only human judgment can resolve.
Habits to keep your edge
Protecting critical thinking is not about avoiding AI. It is about building habits that keep our minds active when AI is everywhere.
Here are three I find valuable:
1. Name the fragile assumption Each time you receive AI output, ask: What is one assumption here that could be wrong? Spend a few minutes digging into that. It forces you to reenter the problem space instead of just editing machine text.
2. Run the reverse test Before you adopt an AI-generated idea, imagine the opposite. If the model suggests that adaptive learning is the key to engagement, ask: What if it is not? Exploring the counter-argument often reveals gaps and deeper insights.
3. Slow the first draft It is tempting to let AI draft emails, reports, or code and just sign off. Instead, start with a rough human outline first. Even if it is just bullet points, you anchor the work in your own reasoning and use the model to enrich–not originate–your thinking.
These small practices keep the human at the center of the process and turn AI into a gym for the mind rather than a crutch.
Why this matters for education
For those of us in education technology, the stakes are unusually high. The tools we build help shape how students learn and how teachers teach. If we let critical thinking atrophy inside our companies, we risk passing that weakness to the very people we serve.
Students will increasingly use AI for research, writing, and even tutoring. If the adults designing their digital classrooms accept machine answers without question, we send the message that surface-level synthesis is enough. We would be teaching efficiency at the cost of depth.
By contrast, if we model careful reasoning and thoughtful use of AI, we can help the next generation see these tools for what they are: accelerators of understanding, not replacements for it. AI can help us scale accessibility, personalize instruction, and analyze learning data in ways that were impossible before. But its highest value appears only when it meets human curiosity and judgment.
Building a culture of shared judgment
This is not just an individual challenge. Teams need to build rituals that honor slow thinking in a fast AI environment. Another practice is rotating the role of “critical friend” in meetings. One person’s task is to challenge the group’s AI-assisted conclusions and ask what could go wrong. This simple habit trains everyone to keep their reasoning sharp.
Next time you lean on AI for a key piece of work, pause before you accept the answer. Write down two decisions in that task that only a human can make. It might be about context, ethics, or simple gut judgment. Then share those reflections with your team. Over time this will create a culture where AI supports wisdom rather than diluting it.
The real promise of AI is not that it will think for us, but that it will free us to think at a higher level.
The danger is that we may forget to climb.
The future of education and the integrity of our own work depend on remaining climbers. Let the machines speed the climb, but never let them choose the summit.
Laura Ascione is the Editorial Director at eSchool Media. She is a graduate of the University of Maryland’s prestigious Philip Merrill College of Journalism.
It is tempting to regard AI as a panacea for addressing our most urgent global challenges, from climate change to resource scarcity. Yet the truth is more complex: unless we pair innovation with responsibility, the very tools designed to accelerate sustainability may exacerbate its contradictions.
A transformative potential
Let us first acknowledge how AI is already reshaping sustainable development. By mapping patterns in vast datasets, AI enables us to anticipate environmental risks, optimise resource flows and strengthen supply chains. Evidence suggests that by 2030, AI systems will touch the lives of more than 8.5 billion people and influence the health of both human and natural ecosystems in ways we have never seen before. Research published in Nature indicates that AI could support progress towards 79% of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), helping advance 134 specific targets. Yet the same research also cautions that AI may impede 59 of those targets if deployed without care or control.
In practice, this means smarter energy grids that balance load and demand, precision agriculture that reduces fertiliser waste and environmental monitoring systems that detect deforestation or pollution in real time. For a planet under pressure, these scenarios offer hope to do less harm and build more resilience.
The hidden costs
Even so, we must confront the shadows cast by AI’s advancements. An investigation published earlier this year warns that AI systems could account for nearly half of global data-centre power consumption before the decade’s end. Consider the sheer scale: vast server arrays, intensive cooling systems, rare-earth mining and water-consuming infrastructure all underpin generative AI’s ubiquity. Worse still, indirect carbon emissions tied to major AI-capable firms reportedly rose by 150% between 2020 and 2023. In short, innovation meant to serve sustainability imposes a growing ecological burden.
Navigating trade-offs
This tension presents an essential question: how can we reconcile AI’s promise with its cost? Scholars warn that we must move beyond the assumption that ‘AI for good’ is always good enough. The moment demands a new discipline of ‘sustainable AI’: a framework that treats resource use, algorithmic bias, lifecycle impact and societal equity as first-order concerns.
Practitioners must ask not only what AI can do, but how it is built, powered, governed and retired. Efficiency gains that drive consumption higher will not deliver sustainability; they may merely escalate resource demands in disguise.
A moral and strategic imperative
For educators, policymakers and business leaders, this is more than a technical issue; it is a moral and strategic one. To realise AI’s true potential in advancing sustainable development, we must commit to three priorities:
Energy and resource transparency: Organisations must measure and report the footprint of their AI models, including data-centre use, water cooling, e-waste and supply-chain impacts. Transparency is foundational to accountability.
Ethical alignment and fairness: AI must be trained and deployed with due regard to bias, social impact and inclusivity. Its benefits must not reinforce inequality or externalise environmental harms onto vulnerable communities.
Integrative education and collaboration: We need multidisciplinary expertise, engineers fluent in ecology, ethicists fluent in algorithms and managers fluent in sustainability. Institutions must upskill young learners and working professionals to orient AI within the broader context of planetary boundaries and human flourishing.
MLA College’s focus and contribution
At MLA College, we recognise our role in equipping professionals at this exact intersection. Our programs emphasise the interrelationship between technology, sustainability and leadership. Graduates of distance-learning and part-time formats engage with the complexities of AI, maritime operations, global sustainable development and marine engineering by bringing insight to sectors vital to the planet’s future.
When responsibly guided, AI becomes an amplifier of purpose rather than a contraption of risk. Our challenge is to ensure that every algorithm, model and deployment contributes to regenerative systems, not extractive ones.
The promise of AI is compelling: more accurate climate modelling, smarter cities, adaptive infrastructure and just-in-time supply chains. But the challenge is equally formidable: rising energy demands, resource-intensive infrastructures and ungoverned expansion.
When responsibly guided, AI becomes an amplifier of purpose rather than a contraption of risk
Our collective role, as educators and practitioners, is to shape the ethical architecture of this era. We must ask whether our technologies will serve humanity and the environment or simply accelerate old dynamics under new wrappers.
The verdict will not be written on lines of code or boardroom decisions alone. It will be inscribed in the fields that fail to regenerate, in the communities excluded from progress, in the data centres humming with waste and in the next generation seeking meaning in technology’s promise.
About the author: Professor Mohammad Dastbaz is the principal and CEO of MLA College, an international leader in distance and sustainability-focused higher education. With over three decades in academia, he has held senior positions including deputy vice-chancellor at the University of Suffolk and pro vice-chancellor at Leeds Beckett University.
A Fellow of the British Computer Society, the Higher Education Academy, and the Royal Society of Arts, Professor Dastbaz is a prominent researcher and author in the fields of sustainable development, smart cities, and digital innovation in education.
His latest publication, Decarbonization or Demise – Sustainable Solutions for Resilient Communities (Springer, 2025), brings together cutting-edge global research on sustainability, climate resilience, and the urgent need for decarbonisation. The book builds on his ongoing commitment to advancing the UN Sustainable Development Goals through education and research.
At MLA College, Professor Dastbaz continues to lead transformative learning initiatives that combine academic excellence with real-world impact, empowering students to shape a sustainable future.
Donald Trump’s second term in office continues to confound onlookers. Yet a growing number of universities around the world are offering courses for students to try to make sense of the mercurial president.
Universities outside the U.S. are also involved. First run in 2017, Trumpism: An American Biography is an optional module for second-year history students at the University of Sheffield, which explores how U.S. history can shed light on the present.
Andrew Heath, lecturer in U.S. history at Sheffield, told Times Higher Education that part of the module’s purpose was to get students thinking about the history of terms such as populism that are “often thrown around in the media to make sense of Trump and Trumpism,” and to encourage them to think critically about the way that comparisons are invoked.
But teaching about such a fast-moving political situation is not easy. “It’s a module that always poses challenges—readings can quickly feel dated; teaching it in an election year last time around was harder. Every iteration of the unit needs significant updating,” added Heath.
Christopher Breem, managing director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Pennsylvania State University, said it is always hard to teach about something going on in the present. But this is often what students are most interested in because they recognize that it is important to them and their future to understand it, he said.
“I think if you are up front with students that there are unavoidable risks associated with teaching any subject in real time, they accept that.”
During the first Trump presidency, some academics came under an intense national spotlight for their courses that explicitly referenced him. One professor who previously taught a course mentioning Trump said the whole experience was “unpleasant,” with staff and the university receiving numerous phone calls and emails.
“The university took my information off the website, and we had a police officer outside of the classroom,” the professor said. “I turned on my house alarm during the day. Frightened, I turned down opportunities for press interviews.”
The academic, who wished to remain anonymous, said it was hard to keep up with the constant change and disruption of the Trump administration but that students were very engaged.
“We are not advocates who use our classes to tell students what action they should take. We are teachers and scholars who inform our students, give them the skills to think in a rigorous, disciplined way, and with integrity. They then decide how to use their skills.”
Johns Hopkins University announced Thursday that it’s eliminating tuition, fees and living expenses for its Homewood campus undergraduates whose families make less than $100,000 a year; students whose families earn up to $200,000 will pay no tuition. It joins a wave of other institutions—especially private, selective ones—that have announced tuition guarantees.
In a news release, the university said the change “means students from a majority of American families, including middle-class families earning above the national median household income of $87,730, can attend Hopkins at no expense.”
Further, Hopkins said, “Most families with incomes up to $250,000 will continue to qualify for significant financial aid. Even those with annual incomes exceeding $250,000 may qualify, especially when there are multiple children in college at the same time.”
Most of the university’s undergrads study on the Homewood campus, in North Baltimore. The release said the new aid levels “will go into effect for eligible current students in the spring 2026 semester and for new, incoming students next fall.”
In a message to the university community, JHU president Ron Daniels said that since businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $1.8 billion to the university in 2018, Hopkins’s share of Pell Grant–eligible students rose from 15.4 percent to 24.1 percent, the highest proportion in university history.
“Our financial aid investment has continued to grow, inspired by Mayor Bloomberg’s transformative gift, with generous contributions by more than 1,200 donors who have given $240 million for financial aid at Hopkins over the last several years,” Daniels wrote. “We are in their collective debt.”
