Leapfrogging in STEM higher education: Pre-active leadership for a world in disruption

Last week, I had the privilege of presenting the closing keynote at the International Meeting on Educational Innovation and STEM Teaching hosted by Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires. I shared my perspectives on the urgent need to rebuild higher education from the ground up and on the importance of preactive leadership in a world increasingly shaped by technological disruption, global complexity, and uncertainty.

Can today’s university curricula truly address the needs of our planet and our communities? In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, in particular, we educate students for challenges that may already be obsolete by the time they graduate. The rapid pace of technological change, especially the rise of artificial intelligence, forces us to reassess not only what we teach, but also how and why we teach.

The Age of Disruption

We are living in an “Age of Disruption,” where the magnitude and velocity of change are overwhelming the very institutions meant to provide stability and continuity. Our universities, designed for more gradual forms of progress, struggle to stay relevant as global trends (e.g., from AI ubiquity and mobile-first infrastructures to data decentralization and the remaking of industry) outpace anything these older systems can comfortably handle. It’s no longer a question of whether our academic programs are a step behind: many institutions now find themselves far behind in a world that’s shifting under their feet with disorienting speed.

And there’s a harsh edge to all this transformation. Some tech companies have already begun trolling with crass campaigns to promote a humanless workforce, suggesting that their products can replace human labor entirely. In the political arena, bureaucracies designed for resilience are being hacked away at with chainsaws, leading to regulatory vacuums and multiplying inefficiencies. Meanwhile, an elite cohort of oligarchs holds the reins of new technologies that undergird the emerging economy and new poles of governance—yet even they stand on shifting ground, vulnerable to the same disruptive forces that threaten every corner of society as we've seen last month with the surprise release of DeepSeek's R1 model that was produced outside their purview at a fraction of the cost. And more competitive models are appearing every day. The pace of technological advancement in this area is exploding.

For STEM-focused institutions, this is an existential crisis. The “half-life” of knowledge and skills shrinks faster than ever. Coding, only a few dozen of months ago, was heralded as the ultimate gateway skill for future job relevance, is losing its utility. We see massive layoffs in technology sectors, and the CEO of Nvidia went so far as to suggest, living children no longer need to learn programming at all as AI can already perform many coding tasks. What happens to STEM education when core skills such as coding or computational thinking are brushed aside as unnecessary? When entire domains of expertise vanish almost overnight, universities risk producing graduates who are profoundly disconnected from the employment landscape.

What do we do when a university degree has the shelf life of a banana?

While artificial intelligence promises enhanced personalization in learning and automates tasks that could free educators to be more creative, AI also intensifies crises around equity, regulation, and environmental sustainability. Without truly thoughtful governance, these tools may widen existing gaps, empowering the privileged while leaving marginalized populations behind. A central question emerges: Should we despair at AI’s capacity to disrupt entire disciplines and professional paths, or do we leverage its potential to remake education in a way that values human insight, creativity, and ethical leadership?

Universities, tasked with serving the good of individuals and communities in a world with linear stability, can not counterbalance select corporate ambitions that run counter to higher education's mission of providing stability and opportunity. If we focus solely on AI’s benefits while ignoring its corrosive impacts on job security, privacy, and equitable access, the future of education could quickly spiral out of our control, especially in the STEM fields. The path we choose now will determine whether education becomes a force for empowerment and human development, or another casualty of a world where the ground is always shifting and the familiar "rules" no longer apply. The existential anxiety is real.

AI is, at its core, a set of computational systems capable of processing vast quantities of data, identifying patterns, and offering automated recommendations or insights that can enrich our understanding and inform our actions. It can serve as an “enhancing” tool in education, filling gaps in human capacity by personalizing learning experiences, alleviating routine tasks for educators, and helping identify areas where students need the most support.

However, AI is not a replacement for human connection or empathy. It is not inherently “intelligent” in the way people are: it does not possess autonomous goals, desires, or self-awareness, and its functionality remains bounded by the algorithms and data its creators feed it. Moreover, AI is not perfect; it can make errors or reflect biases present in its training data, underscoring that it still requires thoughtful human oversight, especially in higher education contexts.

This puts incredible pressure on human imagination and foresight to prepare for what is to come. In this context, the idea of the Technological Singularity emerges as focal point with renewed interest. As our experienced limits of human imagination, it marks the boundary where technological progress outpaces our capacity to understand, control, or imagine what might happen next. Rather than a single, seismic moment, I suggest “mini-Singularities” erupt in waves, each one overwhelming individuals and institutions in unpredictable ways and at different times. For large segments of the population, especially those whose livelihoods hinge on skill sets rapidly rendered obsolete, this future is already here, and they find themselves in a world shaped by forces beyond their capability to plan for, adapt to, or imagine a future that includes them.

What now? Manifesto 25 provides us with a set of principles for deep educational transformation, rooted in post-disciplinary learning and the empowerment of students. The manifesto reminds us that simply adding new technology is insufficient; we must rebuild our foundations, tackle structural inequities, and position educators as innovators and co-creators. It is a “positive rebellion” against outdated paradigms that perpetuate passivity and injustice. Key ideas include:

• Reimagining education as a dynamic, transdisciplinary ecosystem: Moving beyond rigid, standardized curricula toward adaptable systems that integrate technology critically and creatively.
• Empowering learners with agency and purpose: Transitioning from knowledge transmission to active knowledge creation and problem-solving.
• Dismantling inequities: Recognizing and confronting the structural disparities that prevent access to quality education.
• Educators as facilitators and mentors: No longer industralized transmitters of information, but co-learners shaping transformation alongside their students.

Leapfrogging toward the future

The best response to the Age of Disruption is not incremental tinkering, but in leapfrogging, bringing preferred futures into a welcoming present. We cannot rely on the comfort of hope to stave off irrelevance; instead, we must lead boldly. A chaordic approach combines enough order to stay focused with enough chaos to remain flexible, guided by principles that let us anticipate change rather than merely react to it.

Preactive leapfrogging requires:

• Educating for lifelong adaptability to accelerating change, rather than training for a single career path that may not exist by the time one's first year of studies are completed.
• Designing a globally-relevant curriculum, accounting for global social, environmental, and political challenges, and equipping learners with the skills to address them.
• Promoting creativity and innovation: Universities serving as hubs of critical thinking and problem-solving, rather than mere credential factories.
• Collaborating with all sectors—business, civil society, and government (i.e., the triple helix model of innovation)—to ensure that knowledge flows, expands, and reshapes social and economic frameworks.

No hope

If we remain tethered to models we inherited, we risk becoming irrelevant within a few short years. In a climate where everything seems to be burning down at once, merely hoping for the best is self-delusion. Only urgent, orchestrated, and visionary action that will determine whether we harness or succumb to the next wave of technological and societal revolution. Recognizing the urgency of our times and acting boldly is what will keep us not just afloat, but capable of steering society in a constructive direction. Education must be a space of empowerment and collective creation of preferred futures. We cannot rely on hope.

Hope alone will not transform our systems or secure our futures. The only option is to act—with uncompromising resolve and vision. We shape our futures by what we build right now, or our futures will shape us without mercy. Our choice is simple: complacency in the face of crisis, or deliberate, transformative action.

To quote Manifesto 25: The future is here. What we build today matters.