AI‘s transition from experimental to integral infrastructure intensifies the need for educational reform. Education strategist Sushma Bharath contends that AI’s true impact is philosophical, not technological, in this broad discussion. Instead of pursuing every novel tool, she argues that educational institutions should focus on timeless skills like learning, critical thinking, adaptability, and practical application. Bharath explains how to create institutions prepared for the future by examining degree reforms, micro-credentials, assessment redesign, faculty development, and institutional identity in a constantly changing world. Edited excerpts.The Economic Times (ET): AI and automation are reshaping every industry. From your vantage point across K–12, universities, and ed-tech, what fundamental shifts must education institutions make today to stay relevant tomorrow?
Sushma Bharath (SB): I think the biggest shift institutions need to make is this, stop focusing on what is current, and start focusing on what is permanent. AI has made one thing very clear. Nothing is constant. A tool that is cutting-edge today may be irrelevant in a few months. So, if institutions are constantly updating curriculum to “stay ahead,” they are going to be in a permanent race they cannot win. The real shift should be toward teaching students how to learn, how to adapt, and how to update themselves.AI is often framed as technology-driven, but I would argue that. In the age of AI, what becomes more important is not technical skill alone. It is critical thinking, logical reasoning, clarity, and vocabulary of language – whichever it may be, the ability to evaluate information, and the ability to synthesize. These are the capabilities that will make someone relevant tomorrow, regardless of the tools being used. Institutions must move from content coverage to capability and skill building.
ET: There is a growing debate around “skills vs degrees.” In the age of AI, how should institutions rethink the balance between foundational knowledge, technical skills, and human capabilities like critical thinking and adaptability?
SB: Degrees are not dead. Blind faith in them is. Employers have not stopped caring about degrees. But they no longer trust them as a reliable signal of industry-readiness. There is too much variance. A degree today can mean deep intellectual engagement, or it can mean minimal effort and surface learning – depending on where you went, and what you did.
So, employers hedge. They look for skills signals. Portfolio. Micro-credentials. Verified outputs. Work experience and internships. Foundational knowledge still matters. Without it, technical skills are shallow. But knowledge alone is no longer enough. Institutions must illustrate demonstrated skill and applied work within degrees.
And then there are human capabilities, problem-solving, communication, and the ability to learn new tools quickly. These are not degree-dependent. They are skill-dependent. The balance should not be either-or. It should be knowledge plus application plus adaptability, with evidence.
ET: Many schools and universities are rushing to add AI courses. In your view, is curriculum redesign enough, or does preparing students for an AI-driven world require deeper structural and cultural transformation within institutions?
SB: Adding AI as a subject is not a transformation. It is a surface response. Any AI course you design today risks being outdated tomorrow. So, if the goal is to stay technologically ahead, institutions will constantly be reacting. The deeper question is cultural. Are we teaching students to think for themselves? Are we building curiosity? Are we encouraging iteration and failure? Are we giving space for improvisation and independent inquiry? Transformation requires shifts in assessment, pedagogy, and mindset. It requires institutions to become comfortable with ambiguity. That is much harder than adding a course.
ET: You often speak about clarity of narrative and institutional identity. How does an institution’s “core story” influence its ability to adapt to emerging technologies like AI and automation?
SB: If an institution defines itself by technology, it will constantly struggle to stay relevant. Technology changes too fast to be the foundation of identity. An institution’s core story must be about the kind of human beings it produces, the learning narrative. What capacities do its graduates carry into the world? What do they think. How do they collaborate? How do they handle complexity and responsibility. What is their relationship with society?
When identity is anchored in capability and values rather than tools, adaptation becomes easier. Technology becomes an enabler, not the definition. Institutions that know who they are can evolve without losing themselves.
ET: Automation may replace certain roles but also create new ones we cannot yet define. How can education systems prepare students for jobs that do not yet exist, without chasing every emerging trend?
SB: We cannot prepare students for specific future job titles. That is unrealistic. What we can do is build their ability to operate without predefined structure. Many future roles will not come with clear frameworks. Students may have to define the role as they go along. That requires improvisation, resilience, and comfort with iteration.
The ability to fail, adjust, and try again is not a soft skill. It is central to future employability. Schools can build this by creating more open-ended tasks. More blank-page problem-solving. More environments where students must put the dots themselves, not just join them.
ET: Faculty readiness is often the missing link in transformation. What practical steps should institutions take to upskill educators so they can meaningfully integrate AI and future skills into their teaching?
SB: Faculty transformation must be driven by usefulness. Teachers are already stretched. If AI is introduced as another burden, resistance is natural. Institutions should first demonstrate how AI tools can simplify planning, feedback, and differentiation. When teachers see that it helps them do their jobs better, buy-in increases. Professional development should be ongoing and practical, not one-off workshops.
Moreover, more importantly, faculty development should focus not only on tools, but on learning design. How do you build critical thinking into a lesson. How do you design for inquiry? How do you assess reasoning rather than recall. If we support teachers meaningfully, integration follows.
ET: With ed-tech, micro-credentials, and alternative learning pathways expanding rapidly, how should traditional institutions reposition themselves to remain trusted anchors in a fragmented learning ecosystem?
SB: Micro-credentials are not rising because they are short. They are rising because they offer verification and validation. Employers want evidence. What did the learner build. What problem did they solve? Who validated it. Traditional institutions should not compete by offering more content. They should reposition as trusted validator of capability. That means embedding experiential pathways, apprenticeships, applied projects, and industry-linked work within degree structures.
Institutions must also be open to modular learning. The future may involve stackable credentials within a broader degree framework – something which our NEP not only advocates, but allows for. If universities can combine depth of knowledge with proof of application, they remain anchors of trust.
ET: If you were advising a university leadership team today, what would be your three non-negotiables for building a future-ready institution over the next five years?
SB: First, every graduate must leave with demonstrated capability, not just a transcript. Portfolios, applied work, and validated projects should be embedded.
Second, faculty and the learning experience must be continuously evolving. Institutions cannot be future-ready if their teaching practices (and their teachers!) are static. Third, institutional identity must be clear and anchored in human capability, not technological trends. Technology should support the mission, not define it.
If these three are in place, institutions can adapt to whatever the future brings us!
