Many signs have appeared that call for rethinking the university

For a long time, universities have tended to continue their existence as institutions that classify knowledge rather than as centers of knowledge production. Yet at the same time the digital revolution, and artificial intelligence in particular, has begun to change this division of roles radically. Today the volume of knowledge produced outside the university is greater, and circulates faster, than what many universities produce within themselves. This new situation opens to debate not only educational methods but the university's very reason for being. The "Micro-Credentials Framework" decision that YÖK took in recent days struck me as a very meaningful and apt step, one of the first important institutional reflections of precisely this debate in Türkiye.

When the regulation is examined carefully, one sees an important change of mentality that redraws the boundaries of university education. According to the information given by YÖK President Prof. Dr. Erol Özvar, from now on students will be able to complete up to 10 percent of the ECTS load required for graduation with competencies gained outside the university. Knowledge and skills acquired in technology academies, research centers, industry training, applied programs and digital learning platforms will be recognized within the academic criteria set by the universities; successfully completed programs will be documented with digital certificates and digital badges in line with international standards, and entered into transcripts and diploma supplements.

This regulation, which looks technical at first glance, is in reality a historic step that changes the university's view of knowledge, without, of course, passing over the question of how effectively and how consistently with its vision the regulation can be implemented.

Throughout the history of the Republic, many reforms were made on higher education. With reference to debates in the world and to its function and role, the autonomy of universities was debated, centralism was debated, the Bologna process was discussed, the coefficient system was changed, the number of universities was increased, and so on. The common assumption of all these debates was in fact that the legitimate place of knowledge production and teaching was the university.

Truth be told, this regulation also shows that this assumption itself is being opened to change.

The modern university took shape according to the needs of industrial society. Standard curricula, standard diplomas and human resources trained for particular professions formed the basis of this model. A student entered university, followed a particular program for four or five years, graduated, and could often complete his professional life with the same knowledge. Today there are abundant signs that, in practice and under market conditions, this balance has been completely upset.

YÖK's decision is noteworthy in terms of the university's effort to catch up with the changing sociology and adapt to it.

Artificial intelligence cannot be seen simply as a new technology; it is a historical rupture that changes the way knowledge is produced. From law to engineering, from accounting to journalism, from medicine to architecture, in many fields knowledge is changing much faster than curricula can be updated. In some fields the industry has moved on to an entirely different stage before universities have opened a new course.

More importantly, knowledge is no longer produced under the monopoly of universities.

A significant portion of the world's most successful software developers, data scientists or AI experts are trained outside classical university education. Open-source platforms, technology companies, research laboratories and digital learning networks have today become the most dynamic centers of knowledge production.

YÖK's micro-credential practice means acknowledging precisely this reality. For the first time the university is preparing to recognize qualified knowledge and skills gained outside itself within certain academic criteria. Admittedly, this should be seen not as the university giving up its authority over knowledge but, on the contrary, as redefining that authority in line with the new conditions.

Indeed, it is no coincidence that the regulation specifically lists artificial intelligence, data science and digital technologies among the priority areas. Because these are the fields transforming fastest today. By the time a four-year undergraduate program is completed, several paradigms can change in the world of AI. It no longer seems possible for the university to keep up with this speed of change on its own through curriculum revisions alone. Micro-credentials aim precisely to fill this gap.

At this point it is worth looking at developments in the world.

China in particular is taking extremely bold steps in building the education system of the AI age. Besides its enormous investments in AI research, it is also restructuring its universities. Many classical departments are being reviewed; AI literacy is being made a common competency of all disciplines. Universities work hand in hand with technology companies, research centers and digital learning platforms. Because what China sees is this truth: Artificial intelligence will not only produce new technologies; it will also produce new professions, new forms of learning and new university models.

This is the greatest debate of the coming years.

Artificial intelligence may not eliminate many professions entirely; but that it will redefine almost all professions is no longer a strong possibility but a visible reality. Much of the knowledge taught at universities today begins to become obsolete before students graduate. For this reason the most valuable skill of the future will not be possessing a particular piece of knowledge, but being able to keep learning continuously.

It is not possible for the university to be exempt from these developments, or to consider itself exempt.

Rather than an institution that makes people memorize knowledge, it must transform into an institution that trains people who can select knowledge, verify it, relate different disciplines to one another, think critically and use artificial intelligence correctly.

Of course, this transformation also has its risks.

It cannot be said that every digital certificate or every online course carries academic value. The success of the regulation will depend on the extent to which universities can ensure quality assurance. Indeed, YÖK has left the final word on which trainings will be academically recognized to university senates. The real debate will begin after this: Which knowledge is genuinely an achievement at the university level? Which skill can be converted into academic credit? The answers universities give to these questions will determine the system's success.

Despite all this, one must concede the following: For many years Türkiye debated access and quantity in higher education. Now it is beginning to debate quality and the nature of learning. This is in itself an important change of mentality.

The step YÖK has taken will of course not on its own solve all the problems of higher education. But this step is important in showing that Türkiye sees the challenge of the AI age.

It is important that the university not be in the arrogance of "knowledge is produced only within my walls." Of course the matter is not limited to entering off-campus trainings into transcripts; it is the reconstruction of the idea of the university in the age of artificial intelligence.