This post is also available in:

Re-evaluating the Role of Higher Education Amidst Three Massive Waves: Climate Crisis, Knowledge Distrust, and Financial Crisis

The world is currently facing the simultaneous shock of three crises. The first is the Climate Crisis. Climate change is no longer a future prediction but a present reality, with the rise in global average temperature and increased carbon concentration reaching a level that threatens the survival of human society. The second is the Crisis of Trust in Knowledge. The spread of disinformation and the distrust of science and expertise are undermining social consensus and weakening the foundations of democracy. The third is the Financial Crisis. National finances are losing sustainability due to aging populations, increased social welfare spending, productivity stagnation, and the rising costs of climate crisis response. These three crises are intertwined, and none can be resolved in isolation. It is at this juncture that higher education is being called upon to assume a new role.

The report, “A Call for Radical Reform: Higher Education for a Sustainable Economy,” published by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), views these issues not as independent matters but as a single structural crisis, arguing that higher education must be redefined as the core axis of the transition to a sustainable economy. The starting point of this report is clear: in an era combining the climate crisis, knowledge distrust, and economic/financial instability, higher education should not merely be an institution providing labor market credentials but a key resource for rebuilding society’s knowledge base and designing sustainability. At the same time, the report raises the concern that the current higher education model is too outdated, inefficient, and structurally unsustainable to perform this role.

The situation in Korea mirrors these concerns entirely. A combination of issues—such as the shrinking student population, the crisis of regional universities, unstable higher education funding, declining social trust in universities, and a lack of research on climate crisis response—is amplifying calls to question the direction and social role of universities. In this context, the HEPI report is not simply a UK higher education reform proposal but can serve as an essential guideline for discussing future structural reform in Korean higher education. This article examines the reasons why higher education must be central to the transition to a sustainable economy, based on the report’s key contents, and analyzes the necessary directions for reform.

The Climate Crisis – No Future Without a Sustainable Economy

The first starting point presented by the report is the severity of the climate crisis. The climate crisis is already in the acceleration phase, and various studies confirm that the global environment after 2050 could change dramatically depending on carbon emission reduction scenarios. The graph showing carbon emission and concentration scenarios included in the report directly illustrates whether current choices lead to recovery or catastrophe. Global carbon concentrations continue to rise, and multiple climate models are already warning that tipping points, such as the collapse of the Arctic sea ice, sea-level rise, and ecosystem collapse, are approaching. In other words, humanity is no longer waiting for a ‘future crisis’ but is already standing at the threshold of irreversible change.

In this situation, the report views the climate crisis not merely as an environmental issue but as an ‘issue of economic sustainability.’ It emphasizes that economic activity depends on underlying assets—natural resources, ecosystems, and social infrastructure—and if these assets are degraded, the economy itself cannot be sustained. The ‘asset-based approach’ of British economist Dieter Helm plays a crucial role here. He argues that key societal assets like the natural environment, basic infrastructure, knowledge, and education must have their maintenance costs borne by the current generation, distinguishing them from additional costs (investments) for improvement which the future generation can afford. However, the report criticizes the current systems of energy, consumption, and education for not following this principle, creating a structure that passes on maintenance and restoration costs to future generations.

광고

Universities, in particular, when viewed as an ‘asset,’ are the most crucial investment that can be passed on to future generations. However, the current higher education system is criticized for being more consumption-oriented than investment-oriented. For example, while knowledge production through research and education can be seen as expanding social assets (investment), high-cost traditional residential undergraduate programs are largely characterized by consumption. As this consumption-centric model expands, the higher education system demands more costs, and the financial pressure is transferred to future generations. The report’s perspective is that for universities to become the center of a sustainable economy, the purpose, structure, and flow of financing for education must be reconfigured.

The Age of Knowledge Distrust – Higher Education’s Role in Rebuilding the ‘Knowledge Commons’

Another serious crisis facing modern society is the collapse of trust in knowledge. The report labels this an “epistemological crisis,” or a crisis of knowledge. In the past, science, experts, and the media functioned as institutions providing the basis for social consensus, but today’s information environment is entirely different. The spread of social media, political polarization, and the reinforcement of algorithm-driven information have created fertile ground for the rapid dissemination of disinformation and conspiracy theories. Recent data from the Edelman Trust Barometer, cited by the HEPI report, shows that over 70% in multiple countries, including the UK, agree with the statement that “government and business leaders are purposely misleading people.” This goes beyond a simple opinion issue, signifying the disappearance of consensus on the most fundamental question: ‘What is true?’ This situation fuels political extremism and distrust in science, complicates public policy formation, and undermines the democratic foundation of society as a whole.

The HEPI report does not simply attribute this knowledge crisis to external factors. Instead, it points to the responsibility of higher education for failing to adequately perform its role as a “repository and producer of socially trusted knowledge.” In particular, the perceptual gap based on educational level is consistently confirmed. For instance, the divergence of opinions between those with and without degrees is widening across diverse areas such as environmental issues, immigration, economic risks, and social inequality. While those with university education are relatively more sensitive to environmental and social justice issues, others show greater concern about economic instability, crime, and the collapse of local communities. The problem is that this difference is not just a variety of perspectives but a structural division in how information is consumed and interpreted through different ‘knowledge ecosystems.’ This division reinforces mutual distrust and political hostility, creating conditions where disinformation can pervade society.

At this point, the report clearly defines the role that higher education must play as the “reconstruction of the knowledge commons.” The knowledge commons is not merely a discourse space for experts but a public foundation where citizens can debate and design the future based on a common set of facts. To achieve this, the report emphasizes that universities must play a role in disseminating three principles to society: respect for evidence, openness to critical review, and transparent explainability of knowledge. HEPI calls this “epistemic responsibility” and proposes it as the standard that universities, students, and graduates must follow when speaking in the public sphere. In essence, universities are not just educational institutions but critical infrastructure that maintains the health of society’s entire knowledge ecosystem, and thus must spread the ‘norms of trusted knowledge’ throughout society. Without the restoration of this public nature of knowledge, solving long-term structural problems like the climate crisis or economic crisis is virtually impossible.

The Limits of the Traditional Higher Education Model – Structural Unsustainability of the ‘Full-Time Undergraduate-Centric System’

The HEPI report asserts that the traditional higher education model—namely, the 3-4 year full-time residential undergraduate model—is no longer sustainable. This model is fundamentally an expanded form of the ‘elite education’ system, and its essential structure has barely changed even after the transition to a mass higher education system. While the popularization of higher education has allowed for the accommodation of more students, the cost structure remained the same, and the existing organizational forms—lectures, facilities, dormitories, student services—also persisted. The problem is that this model is excessively costly to operate for a large number of students, and the purpose and method of education are misaligned with the changed social environment. The report specifically points to the financial crisis of UK universities, analyzing that if the current structure is maintained, higher education risks becoming a “high-cost consumption service rather than a public good.”

There are three main reasons why this model is unsustainable: First, the high-cost structure. Residential, full-time degrees often place a greater emphasis on ‘lifestyle’ and ‘social experience’ than on education itself, making higher education spending an ‘immediate consumption’ rather than an ‘investment for the future.’ The report stresses that spending with such a strong consumption nature should, in principle, be borne by the current generation. However, in reality, a significant portion is transferred through student loans or national debt, creating a structure that shifts the burden directly onto future generations. Second, the mismatch with the labor market. Large 3-4 year degrees require excessive pre-learning and can be inefficient due to a lack of connection to actual job skills or an overly broad scope. The competencies required in modern industry are becoming increasingly specialized and rapidly changing, but the outdated degree model fails to keep pace. Third, the issue of accessibility. Full-time degrees are structured to favor those with sufficient social, geographical, and economic means, making them a difficult model for adult learners, low-income individuals, and residents of non-metropolitan areas to access. This exacerbates the knowledge gap and deepens social inequality.

To solve these problems, the report proposes a fundamental shift in the higher education model. It argues for moving away from a structure centered on full-time degrees towards a multi-path education system based on short-term qualifications, modular learning, and lifelong learning. This aligns with the UK’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) policy and is structurally similar to Korea’s efforts to expand the lifelong education system, micro-degrees, and the credit bank system. HEPI specifically emphasizes the need to “drastically reduce” the proportion of full-time bachelor’s degrees and institutionally guarantee a much more diverse array of learning paths than before. The message is that the transition to a sustainable economy is not just an issue of economic, industrial, or climate policy; it cannot be achieved without the structural reorganization of the education system.

The Restoration of the Knowledge Commons – Universities Must Re-establish the ‘Standard of Knowledge’ in Society

The reason for the expansion of disinformation and knowledge distrust in modern society is not solely due to technology, but because higher education has failed to sufficiently disseminate the public authority and accountability of knowledge throughout society. HEPI offers the concept of the ‘knowledge commons’ as a solution. The knowledge commons is a social knowledge infrastructure that enables citizens to debate based on a common set of facts, operating around credible evidence, verification, and transparency. However, in today’s information environment, this foundation is severely weakened. HEPI believes that universities must extend their academic standards into the public sphere and proposes institutionalizing the concept of ‘epistemic responsibility’ to this end. Epistemic responsibility does not merely mean honesty; it establishes three principles—evidence-based claims, openness to critical review, and clear explainability of knowledge—as the fundamental rules for knowledge production and debate.

The report argues that universities should practice epistemic responsibility more actively in the media, politics, and public discourse. This means that scholars’ opinions on social issues are not merely ‘participation’ but a unique social role of maintaining and disseminating the standard of knowledge. Furthermore, it emphasizes that students must be taught not only academic knowledge but also ‘epistemic responsibility’ as an essential competence of university education. This is the competence surrounding the interpretation and judgment of knowledge, representing the minimum democratic defense that allows citizens to protect their own judgment in an age of rampant disinformation. To institutionalize this epistemic responsibility, HEPI suggests considering the establishment of national-level standards—for example, a new code to establish the ‘common norms of academic knowledge.’

The restoration of the knowledge commons is also closely linked to the expansion of higher education participation. Currently, participation in higher education acts as a major variable determining social perception, political attitude, and the level of social trust. The report points out that as knowledge inequality deepens, the likelihood of disinformation spreading increases. This is not simply about ‘higher education levels meaning less susceptibility to disinformation,’ but rather that as the difference in social experiences that form epistemic perspectives grows, a structure is created where the common foundation is weakened and social division intensifies. Therefore, HEPI emphasizes the need to expand higher education accessibility to build a ‘universal higher education participation system’ encompassing both degree and non-degree pathways. This provides significant implications for Korea. Amidst the accelerating university crisis due to the declining student population, there is a need to redefine higher education not as a ‘selective service’ but as the ‘foundational infrastructure of the knowledge commons.’ Expanding higher education participation can function as a core condition for restoring society’s overall intellectual ecosystem, not just for improving labor market adaptability.

Educational Reform for a Sustainable Economy – Redesigning Curriculum, Systems, and Governance

The core argument of the HEPI report is that “the transition to a sustainable economy is impossible without higher education reform.” A sustainable economy goes beyond merely developing eco-friendly technology or reducing carbon emissions; it means the transformation of the entire economy into a carbon-neutral, circular economy, and ecologically based industrial structure. This transition is based on new knowledge and technology, an area that higher education must provide.

To this end, the report argues for the necessity of reconstructing the higher education curriculum. This is not just about increasing environment-related courses; core values such as carbon reduction, sustainability, and the circular economy must be internalized across all fields of study. For example, in business administration, sustainable accounting, sustainable management indicators, and carbon accounting should become basic education, and in engineering, carbon-neutral technology and energy-efficient design must be essential components. Even in social sciences, topics such as climate risk, environmental policy, and sustainable welfare systems should be part of the basic curriculum.

Furthermore, HEPI emphasizes the need to significantly increase the productivity of higher education. This means “a way to provide higher education to more people while operating sustainably without excessively increasing national finances.” Increased productivity is deeply connected to the introduction of AI, digital educational tools, and learning analytics technology. The report states that AI-based learning assistants, digital assessment automation, and hybrid lecture platforms are key tools that can reduce costs while maintaining educational quality. This is an important discussion for Korean universities to embrace. Especially in a situation where universities must operate based on ‘efficiency and innovation’ rather than ‘expansion’ due to the declining student population, technology-based productivity enhancement is a necessity, not an option. AI technology can also function as an essential resource in the transition from a large-scale delivery model to small-scale personalized education.

Finally, HEPI argues that reform of higher education governance is necessary. The current higher education regulatory system in the UK is a structure intertwined with complex procedures and various regulatory bodies, causing universities to focus on meeting short-term indicators rather than long-term strategy. The report proposes simplifying this by transitioning to a ‘commissioner-based system’ at the central and regional levels. This is a structure that can strategically reflect national priorities—such as sustainability, carbon reduction, and universal education participation—while maintaining university autonomy. This suggestion holds significant implications for Korea. The current Korean higher education governance also suffers from a problem where intertwined evaluation, accreditation, funding, and regulatory systems cause universities to focus on ‘managing evaluation metrics’ rather than structural innovation. The HEPI model can serve as an alternative governance framework for reference, expanding universities’ strategic autonomy while comprehensively reflecting national goals.

A Sustainable Future is Impossible Without University Reform

The message from the HEPI ‘Radical Reform’ report is simple yet powerful: to create a sustainable economy, higher education must be fundamentally reconfigured. This is not because higher education is merely a part of the economy but because it is the core foundation that creates knowledge, skills, and social consensus. In an age where the climate crisis is accelerating, disinformation is fueling social conflict, and economic structures are rapidly changing, it is no longer possible for universities to operate in the traditional manner. Universities are not only institutions that nurture future talent but are also the knowledge infrastructure that society depends on and the producers of the fact-based public sphere that sustains democracy, thus bearing significant social responsibility. Therefore, moving away from the traditional degree-centric model, extending learning across the lifespan, and redesigning the curriculum and governance around sustainability are not merely optional reforms but an inevitable change.

Korean higher education also stands at the same turning point. Universities are facing a crisis of extinction due to the declining student population, the gap between regional and metropolitan universities is deepening, and the financial sustainability of universities is shaking. At the same time, national tasks such as responding to the climate crisis, digital transformation, and industrial structure reorganization are becoming increasingly complex, and the importance of the talent, knowledge, and research needed to solve them is growing. In this situation, the direction of higher education reform presented by HEPI offers a framework for structural reform that can be directly applied to the reality of Korean higher education. This is not merely a report on the specific circumstances of the UK but a practical roadmap for analyzing the structural crisis facing global higher education and designing a future-oriented higher education system.

Ultimately, creating a sustainable future is not possible through government policy or corporate technological innovation alone. Higher education must play a core role in the process where citizens share evidence-based knowledge, industries transition to sustainable structures, and society acquires the capacity to prepare for the future. The HEPI report systematically presents how universities must change to fulfill this role. What is needed now is to adapt these changes to the reality of Korean higher education and for universities, government, and local communities to collaboratively design a sustainable, knowledge-based society. In an age where the climate crisis and technological innovation are rapidly converging, there is no future if higher education does not change. The journey toward a sustainable economy ultimately begins at the university.

#SustainableEconomy #HigherEducationReform #HEPI #KnowledgeCommons #LifelongLearning #CarbonNeutrality #UniversityFinancialCrisis #ModularLearning #DegreeTransition #EducationGovernance #SpotlightU