In 2000, the global tertiary education gross enrolment ratio was 19%. By 2024, it had reached 44%. The gross graduation ratio also increased, but more slowly, from 17% to 27% (UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report Team, 2026). These figures describe a major expansion of higher education. They also remind us that entering university, completing a qualification and benefiting from learning are different outcomes.
Education continues to matter for employment. Across OECD countries in 2024, 87% of tertiary-educated adults aged 25–34 were employed, compared with 79% of those whose highest attainment was upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (OECD, 2025). This is an association across OECD countries, not an estimate for Malaysia or proof that the qualification alone caused the difference. Still, earning a living is a sound reason to study. It enables people to support themselves and their families.
But is employment enough as the final measure of education?
The purpose of education: Then and now
I have wondered whether education has moved towards preparing people mainly for employment and income, leaving less room for wisdom and contribution. This concern has been discussed by education scholars for years. McCowan (2015) describes how employability has become increasingly central to universities, while arguing that it is a valid aim only when it is consistent with their wider purpose of fostering understanding through open-ended enquiry. Biesta (2009) argues that debates dominated by measured outcomes can lose sight of the question of educational purpose.
We must distinguish this pressure on universities from what students actually believe. Brooks et al. (2021) studied 54 focus groups with 295 students in six European countries. Students valued preparation for work, but also spoke of personal growth and society’s development. This study cannot tell us whether Malaysian students’ motives have changed over time. It does challenge the assumption that today’s students seek only private gain.
There is a useful record of this debate. In 1972, UNESCO’s Faure report argued for education throughout life and a learning society (International Commission on the Development of Education, 1972). In 1996, the Delors report described four pillars: learning to know, learning to do, learning to be and learning to live together (International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, 1996). In 2021, UNESCO’s commission called for education as a public endeavour and a common good, while recognising the need to rebuild our relationships with one another, the planet and technology (International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021). These reports proposed directions; they are not evidence that education systems fully achieved them.
The public purpose of education is therefore a longstanding aspiration. It has become harder to ignore as access expands, work changes and shared problems grow. Biesta (2009) offers a useful way to examine it: education concerns qualification, socialisation and the development of a person capable of judgement and responsibility. Employment belongs within the first domain, but cannot stand for all three. The question for us is whether our institutions allow all three to flourish.
For many students, the familiar route is clear: complete a syllabus, pass examinations, obtain a degree and enter a profession. That route remains important, particularly where a broad body of knowledge, supervised training and professional regulation protect the public. We should not discard it. We should ask whether it is sufficient preparation for an entire working life.
AI sharpens this question, and it extends beyond chatbots generating answers. The International Labour Organization estimates that one in four workers globally is in an occupation with some exposure to generative AI. Exposure is an estimate of how work tasks might be affected. It does not mean that one in four workers will lose their jobs. The ILO considers changes in tasks more likely than the complete replacement of most occupations (Gmyrek et al., 2025). Crucially, this particular estimate concerns generative AI exposure. It is not an estimate of exposure to every form of AI or of the effect of autonomous agents.
Agentic AI adds another possibility. An AI system can be given a goal, plan several steps, use digital tools, check results and take actions with varying levels of human supervision (OECD, 2026). For example, it might collect information from several systems, draft an analysis and initiate the next step of a workflow. These systems are developing quickly, but their adoption and real-world effects remain uncertain. If a system can do more of the routine sequence, the graduate’s role shifts towards setting sound goals, checking evidence, protecting people affected by a decision and knowing when to intervene. A graduate will need more than a fixed set of answers acquired before graduation.
What do we mean by sustainable education?
The phrase can mean different things. It may refer to teaching about climate and sustainable development, the environmental footprint of an institution, or the ability of an education system to continue serving learners. All matter. For this discussion, I use a working definition: sustainable education equips people to keep learning as circumstances change and to use what they know responsibly for lasting benefit to people and the environment. This is a proposed framework, not an official UNESCO definition.
UNESCO describes education for sustainable development as enabling learners to make informed decisions and act responsibly for environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society, with present and future generations in view (UNESCO, 2017). That is wider than adding a sustainability topic to an existing syllabus. It asks what learners can do with knowledge and what consequences their decisions have.
In practice, I would test an educational programme with three questions. Can the graduate continue to learn and adapt? Can the graduate use knowledge responsibly in work and society? Can the programme and its partnerships continue to deliver value for future cohorts? These questions give us outcomes we can examine, rather than a label we merely claim.
A degree is a foundation, not the end of learning
The future need not be a choice between degrees and short courses. A degree can provide the depth, methods and professional identity needed to practise well. Later learning can address new methods, technologies or community needs. Malaysia’s Qualifications Agency already has guidance for assessed micro-credentials, including pathways that can complement or form components of accredited programmes (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2020).
The important word is assessed. A collection of certificates does not necessarily show competence. In health sciences, for example, we would want evidence that a learner can interpret findings, communicate uncertainty and make a safe decision, not merely show that they attended a course. The same applies to AI. A system may produce an answer quickly, or an agent may act on it. The professional must still judge whether the evidence is valid, whether the action is authorised, and whether it is fair and appropriate for the person affected. Teaching only prompt writing would be a thin response to this challenge.
The question we often leave out
Universities routinely measure enrolment, completion, examination results and employment. These are important. Yet measures cannot decide the purpose of education for us. Biesta (2009) warned against allowing what is easy to measure to displace the question of what education is for.
If a student asks, “Will this help me get a job?”, we should be able to answer. We can also ask, “Whose problem will you learn to solve? What harm should your profession avoid? What will you contribute when no one is grading you?”
These questions do not require students to give up personal ambitions. Earning an income and serving others can coexist. In four studies involving more than 2,000 adolescents and young adults, Yeager and colleagues (2014) found that connecting learning to a purpose beyond oneself could improve aspects of academic self-regulation. Their research does not prove that a purpose statement automatically improves communities. It does suggest that the reason for learning can matter to how students engage with difficult work.
Knowledge from which people benefit
For a Muslim, this question has a deeper foundation. In a hadith recorded in Sahih Muslim (1631), the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ identified beneficial knowledge, ‘ilmun yuntafa‘u bih, among the deeds whose reward continues after a person’s death. I take this as an invitation to ask whether knowledge continues to do good beyond the learner and beyond the classroom. It is a moral direction, not a substitute for sound evidence or professional standards.
At IIUM, Tawhidic epistemology gives this direction an institutional form. The University’s academic guideline describes knowledge as originating from Allah and calls for its purpose to be reflected in curriculum, teaching, assessment and graduate attributes (IIUM Office of Knowledge for Change and Advancement, 2025). The Rector has linked this foundation to a Tawhidic mind, an Ummatic mind and Ummatic excellence (Mustafa, 2025). For me, the practical test is whether our students become both capable and answerable for the effects of their work.
That test can begin in a foundation programme. Imagine students studying extreme heat in a nearby community. They could analyse temperature data, examine health risks, speak with residents, check the limits of their evidence and develop advice that people can actually use. The work would bring together scientific competence, care for others and judgement about uncertainty. It would also require feedback from the community: was the advice understandable, feasible and useful? This is an example of a possible teaching design, not a claim about an existing programme or a proven intervention.
From aspiration to practice
I propose three changes in how we think about education and put it into practice.
First, knowledge is an amanah. What we learn should lead us to recognise our Creator and our responsibility before Him. In a programme, this must be more than a statement in the course outline. We can ask students to examine the reliability of evidence, acknowledge what they do not know, and consider the consequences of using knowledge carelessly. This is one practical way to connect Tawhidic purpose with intellectual honesty and professional conduct.
Second, education should address real problems. We should review the purpose of each programme and ask what needs its graduates are prepared to meet. This does not mean giving inexperienced students a complex problem and leaving them to work it out alone. Teach the underlying knowledge and methods, then give them supervised opportunities to apply these with the people affected. In the heat and health example, residents should help identify the difficulty they face and judge whether the students’ response is useful. A completed assignment is not, by itself, evidence that a community has benefited (Álvarez-Vanegas et al., 2024).
Third, knowledge must remain relevant. A degree provides a foundation, but new evidence, changing needs and AI will alter how graduates practise. We should prepare them to question what they learned, acquire new competencies and return to reliable sources when an answer may be outdated. Universities should make it possible for graduates to continue learning, and should review programmes in light of what graduates and communities encounter. The question is not simply whether a syllabus is current today, but whether learners can renew their knowledge tomorrow.
These three propositions give a practical meaning to knowledge that benefits people: knowledge received as a trust, applied to genuine needs and renewed as the world changes.
References
Álvarez-Vanegas, A., Ramani, S. V., & Volante, L. (2024). Service-learning as a niche innovation in higher education for sustainability. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1291669. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1291669
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Brooks, R., Gupta, A., Jayadeva, S., & Abrahams, J. (2021). Students’ views about the purpose of higher education: A comparative analysis of six European countries. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(7), 1375–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1830039
Gmyrek, P., Berg, J., Kamiński, K., Konopczyński, F., Ładna, A., Nafradi, B., Rosłaniec, K., & Troszyński, M. (2025). Generative AI and jobs: A refined global index of occupational exposure (ILO Working Paper No. 140). International Labour Organization. https://doi.org/10.54394/HETP0387
International Commission on the Development of Education. (1972). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/futures-education/visions-education
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/futures-education/visions-education
International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/reimagining-our-futures-together-new-social-contract-education
IIUM Office of Knowledge for Change and Advancement. (2025). Guideline on the consolidation of Tawhidic epistemology (TE) in academic programmes. https://office.iium.edu.my/kca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Guideline-on-the-Consolidation-of-Tawhidic-Epistemology_22082025.pdf
Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2020). Guidelines to good practices: Micro-credentials. https://www2.mqa.gov.my/qad/v2/2020/GGP%20Micro-credentials%20August%202020.pdf
McCowan, T. (2015). Should universities promote employability? Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515598060
Mustafa, N. M. (2025, March 17). Tawhidic epistemology is the root of Ummatic excellence: Prof. Emeritus Datuk Dr. Osman Bakar. IIUM Today. https://news.iium.edu.my/tawhidic-epistemology-is-the-root-of-ummatic-excellence-prof-emeritus-datuk-dr-osman-bakar/
OECD. (2025). Education at a glance 2025: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en
OECD. (2026). The agentic AI landscape and its conceptual foundations (OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers No. 56). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/396cf758-en
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/education-sustainable-development-goals-learning-objectives
UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report Team. (2026). Global education monitoring report 2026: Access and equity, countdown to 2030. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/equity-and-access
Yeager, D. S., Henderson, M. D., Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., D’Mello, S., Spitzer, B. J., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037637