If you want industrial AI, you need to rethink education

Over the coming weeks, the lecture halls at German universities will once again be filling up with young adults. They arrive with expectations, ambitions and ideas. They are curious, motivated and keen to make a difference. For Germany, they are far more than just students: They are our human capital – and therefore one of our country’s most important resources.

Yet it is precisely when we look at this younger generation that an uncomfortable question arises: Is our education system really prepared for their future? The answer is not straightforward. This is because Germany has a fundamentally strong education system, outstanding universities and internationally renowned research institutions. At the same time, structural shortcomings are evident in many areas. And these issues are no longer confined to schools alone.

The PISA shock 2.0

Just the start of the debate on education

Education has been a perennial political issue in Germany, at least since the first PISA shock. And the latest PISA results are once again a cause for concern in Germany. Scores are at an all-time low: In mathematics, reading and science, 15-year-olds have achieved their lowest proficiency scores since the PISA surveys began. Around a third do not meet the minimum standard in maths and reading. This is alarming.

After all, those who lack sufficient reading, writing and arithmetic skills find it harder to acquire knowledge, understand complex concepts and solve problems independently. Basic skills are therefore not only a matter for schools. They are a prerequisite for social participation and economic prosperity. But that is not the end of the debate on education. In a way, it starts all over again after secondary school – in the lecture hall.

1. The education system is disconnected from the real world

Anyone who walks into a lecture hall today will find a generation that is growing up in a world completely different from that of previous generations. Wars, climate change, energy supply, inflation and geopolitical tensions are shaping young people’s outlook on life. The 2024 SINUS Youth Study shows that young people are more worried than ever due to the multitude of overlapping crises. At the same time, for many people, the transition to working life and adulthood is a source of anxiety due to the uncertainties in society.

The transformation brought by AI adds to the uncertainty. Young people are becoming increasingly aware that artificial intelligence could also change their own career prospects: According to another SINUS survey from 2024, 22 per cent of 14- to 17-year-olds felt that AI posed a threat to their career plans – five percentage points more than in the previous year. This is the world for which our education system is preparing young people.

Here lies the first problem: Education is rarely aligned with the specific issues and problems that actually concern young people. Why isn’t their learning more closely linked to the major challenges of our time? Why are climate change, water scarcity, energy supply, digitalisation and artificial intelligence not being incorporated more systematically into interdisciplinary learning?

2. Theory without practice is doomed to fail

This brings us to the second problem: the relationship between education and the world of work. With its dual vocational training, Germany has established a system that is respected worldwide. Nevertheless, ensuring practical relevance remains a challenge even in academic education.

The ‘Student Survey in Germany’ shows that only 39 per cent of students rate their degree programme as being closely aligned with professional practice. Conversely, around a third report that there is little or no practical focus. Only 36 per cent think there is a strong focus on developing practical work skills.

That’s striking. After all, the young people studying today will not be working in some abstract educational world tomorrow. They will develop machinery, programme software, design buildings, operate water infrastructure, run businesses or conduct research into medicines.

Education and the world of work must not remain separate. In this context, practical relevance does not mean replacing science with training. On the contrary: Its strength lies precisely in the connection between academic rigour and practical application. Dual study programmes show that this connection can work. They combine academic qualifications with practical experience, thereby building a bridge between universities and businesses.

3. AI isn’t waiting for the curriculum

Even more serious is the pace of technological change. Artificial intelligence is not developing in step with parliamentary terms, accreditation procedures or the revision of degree regulations.

Whilst students have been using AI for some time now, many universities are still in the process of developing institutional responses. According to the AI Monitor 2025 of the Hochschulforum Digitalisierung (Higher Education Forum on Digitalisation), only 15 per cent of the universities surveyed had adopted their own AI strategy; a further 50 per cent were in the process of developing one. 97 per cent were considering the impact of AI on examinations, but only 43 per cent had amended their examination regulations accordingly.

This is not a criticism of individual universities. It is an indication of a structural problem: Technology changes exponentially, whilst organisations often change incrementally. That is precisely where the danger lies. If AI transforms entire professions, business models and work processes within a few years, an education system that is slow to adapt may lose its relevance.

The aim here is not to teach young people as many AI tools as possible. There is more at stake: data literacy, critical thinking, scientific judgement, interdisciplinary collaboration and the ability to use AI responsibly.

4. Institutional silos are barriers to educational progress

Germany does not have one single education system, but rather many interconnected yet institutionally separate systems. Schools, vocational training, universities, businesses and research organisations operate according to different principles and have different areas of responsibility. This structure has developed over time. And it does have its advantages. Specialisation ensures quality. However, where systems overlap, friction arises.

This becomes particularly clear during the transition from secondary school to vocational training. The so-called transitional system comprises a wide range of different measures and programmes, which are organised in different ways from both an institutional and a legal perspective. These distinctions may make sense to the institutions themselves. For a 19-year-old, that’s not always the case.

The generational dimension underlying the education problem

There is therefore a wider issue underlying these four developments. The question is: who is our education system actually designed for? Education is an investment with an exceptionally long time horizon. A child born today will celebrate their 80th birthday in 2106. Political decision-making processes, on the other hand, often take place over much shorter timeframes.

A demographic shift compounds the issue. In the 2025 federal election, 42.1 per cent of those eligible to vote were aged 60 or over; the over-70s alone accounted for 23.2 per cent. The 18- to 29-year-olds accounted for a total of 13.3 per cent. The German Bundestag itself is also, in terms of age, predominantly made up of members from the middle and older age groups: The average age of the members of the 21st Bundestag is 47.1 years; only 32 of the 630 MPs are under 30.

One should not draw the sweeping conclusion from this that older politicians are not interested in young people. Such an accusation would not be fair considering the complexity of the problem. However, there is clearly a structural conflict: The generation that will have to live with the consequences of today’s educational decisions for the longest does not have sufficient influence over these decisions, given their demographic size and institutional representation.

Core skills: Yes. Education reform: Also yes.

What follows from this? First of all, we must start where the PISA debate quite rightly begins: with basic skills. Reading, writing and maths are not old-fashioned. They are the operating system of all further education.

In 2025, the Bertelsmann Foundation, in collaboration with the ifo Institute, modelled the potential economic impact of the education targets for 2035 formulated by three state education ministers. These include, amongst other things, a 50 per cent reduction in the number of pupils who fail to meet the minimum standards in German and mathematics. The model projects a total of just under 21 trillion euros in additional gross domestic product over the period up to 2105. The message: Education policy is economic policy.

This must not lead us to view education solely from an economic perspective. We need both: A solid foundation of basic skills and an educational framework that prepares young people for a world that is changing faster than ever before. The school system needs to be reformed. But so does post-secondary education.

Joining forces for education

The state cannot tackle this task on its own. It must, of course, establish a reliable framework, ensure quality, guarantee educational opportunities and define long-term objectives. But the state does not have to develop every innovation itself.

This is where the private sector comes into play. Companies are not merely consumers of human capital. They are part of the education ecosystem. They have first-hand experience with changes in technology, markets and job profiles. They have real-world use cases, international networks, research partnerships and the opportunity to give young people early access to future technologies. That is why Germany needs a new joint effort between the public and private sectors: Government and business, universities and companies, theory and practice.

From an educational institution to an educational ecosystem

What could such a new educational framework achieve? It would not wait until young people have graduated to introduce them to the technologies of the future, but would enable them to work on real-world problems whilst they are still in vocational training or at university. It would not only impart knowledge, but also put it into practice. It would not view AI primarily as a problem for traditional teaching methods, but rather as a tool for new forms of learning and research. It would view companies not merely as future employers, but as partners in skills development.

And it would break down barriers – between disciplines, institutions and countries. After all, global connectivity is becoming a decisive factor. Water knows no national borders. Energy knows no national borders. AI knows no national borders. Knowledge, too, knows no national boundaries.

Anyone who wants to equip young people for the world of tomorrow must create educational programmes that are internationally connected, technologically open and, at the same time, geared towards real-world social challenges. This is precisely where educational platforms initiated by the private sector can play an important complementary role: They can connect schools, universities, research organisations and industry to address specific future-oriented topics, pool international expertise and give young people access to real-world use cases.

This is not a substitute for the state education system, but rather a necessary addition to it.

From the PISA shock to an industrial AI champion

Germany has introduced reforms in the wake of the PISA shock. However, the current situation shows that a one-off reform initiative is not enough. We need a culture of continuous innovation in education. The crucial question today is no longer simply: Can our pupils read, write and do arithmetic? We should also ask ourselves: Are young people able to handle the technologies that are changing their world? Are they able to evaluate AI critically? Can they translate scientific findings into practical solutions? Are they able to work across disciplines? Can they identify real-world problems and work together to solve them? Can they hold their own in a global workplace? And can they turn technology into social progress?

These are the questions against which post-secondary education should be measured.

And the answers to these questions are particularly important for Germany. Because Germany has an industrial base that is the envy of many countries: Mechanical engineering, automation, electrical engineering, robotics, energy, water and building services engineering, sensor technology and industrial production. The key question will be whether we can combine this industrial expertise with artificial intelligence.

Germany does not need to try to copy Silicon Valley. The opportunity lies, rather, in connecting the strengths of our industrial sectors and the potential of AI. To achieve this, we need more than just capital and technology. Above all, we need people who can bring the two together.

It is therefore right to overhaul the primary and secondary school system in the light of the latest PISA results. But that is not enough for Germany as a centre of business and industry. We must also focus on post-secondary education – its practical relevance, its technological readiness, its international links and its ability to prepare young people for a world of constant flux.

Young people who are stepping into a lecture hall for the first time today are not the problem with our education system. They are its best hope for the future. We need an education system that does not prepare young people for the world of yesterday, but empowers them to shape the world of tomorrow.

Sources: OECD, SINUS Institute, DZHW, Higher Education Forum on Digitalisation, DESTATIS, German Bundestag, Bertelsmann Foundation/ifo Institute