Will AI replace Higher education teaching professionals?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 56 official task statements scored for Higher education teaching professionals (United Kingdom, SOC 2311), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 44 out of 100 (range 38–50, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Higher education teaching professionals” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inform students of the procedures for completing and submitting coursework” (93/100, very high); “Record grades for examinations, assignments, or papers” (93/100, very high); “Develop syllabuses as teaching materials” (83/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Higher education teaching professionals” stay human?

About 53% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Represent institutions at community and campus events” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise students' laboratory work” (6/100, minimal); “Perform pastoral duties as a personal tutor to students” (8/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Higher education teaching professionals” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 53% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Higher education teaching professionals calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 56 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Higher education teaching professionals

conducting research within own field of expertise, creating study materials for teaching or training and developing handouts as teaching materials for various educational subjects. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: informing students of the procedures for completing and submitting coursework. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 32%
changing shape: 15%
staying human: 53%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 44 out of 100 (38–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 56 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for higher education teaching professionals is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, leading discussion groups, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Higher education teaching professionals deliver lectures and teach students to at least first degree level, undertake research and write journal articles and books in their chosen field of study. The job title says “higher education teaching professionals”. The real job is the part underneath: leading discussion groups. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But higher education teaching professionals is not one task. It is 56 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is leading discussion groups, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 32%
changing shape: 15%
staying human: 53%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

Shifting to AI

18 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Developing syllabuses as teaching materials
This is reading one thing and writing another: syllabuses in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Develop syllabuses as teaching materials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Syllabuses follow published curriculum structures that AI assembles into a solid first version.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Planning, evaluating and revising curricula, course content and course materials and teaching methods
This is reading one thing and writing another: curricula, course content and course materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Plan, evaluate, and revise curricula, course content, and course materials and teaching methods.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Curriculum and course materials are well covered in public sources AI can work from.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Designing examinations to assess academic understanding
This is reading one thing and writing another: examinations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Design examinations to assess academic understanding.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts exam questions well against a syllabus, with academics moderating before papers are used.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing exam papers to assess student knowledge
This is reading one thing and writing another: exam papers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Develop exam papers to assess student knowledge.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing exam papers from a syllabus is drafting work software does well, subject to academic moderation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

8 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Assessing, and marking students' work
The software now makes the first pass at students' work, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not published
No importance rating is published for this task, so the ordering here is ours.
Source: “Assess and Mark students' work.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: AI drafts solid feedback on written work, though teachers still handle books in class and know each pupil's history.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Marking examinations and assessments
The software now makes the first pass at examinations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Mark examinations and assessments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Marking against a published mark scheme suits AI well, though scripts are often handwritten on paper.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Publishing scientific papers detailing research findings
The software now makes the first pass at scientific papers detailing research findings, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Publish scientific papers detailing research findings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts and edits papers well, but the findings and their defence belong to the researcher.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

30 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Conducting research within own field of expertise
The ratings behind this row put research within own field of expertise well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 90 · 2311/00
Source: “Conduct research within own field of expertise.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Original research produces new knowledge, and software gives starting points that specialists have to rework heavily.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Publishing research findings or presenting them at conferences and seminars
This work happens in the physical world: research findings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2311/00
Source: “Publish research findings or present them at conferences and seminars.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Software helps write up findings, but presenting them at a conference and defending them is done in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Presenting academic lectures to university students to facilitate learning
This work happens in the physical world: academic lectures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2311/00
Source: “Present academic lectures to university students to facilitate learning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can prepare the lecture, but standing in front of students and reading the room is a person's job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 46 tasks

Informing students of the procedures for completing and submitting coursework
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: students of the procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Inform students of the procedures for completing and submitting coursework.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Telling students how and when to submit coursework is standard information a system can send accurately.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recording grades for examinations, assignments or papers
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: grades in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Record grades for examinations, assignments, or papers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Entering marks into a school system is straightforward data work that software does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating study materials for teaching or training
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: study materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Create study materials for teaching or training.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software writes teaching handouts and slides well, though academics still tailor them to their own module.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing handouts as teaching materials for various educational subjects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: handouts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Develop handouts as teaching materials for various educational subjects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Handouts draw on well-documented subject content, which AI shapes into classroom-ready material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing course materials, syllabuses, homework assignments and handouts
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: course materials, syllabuses, homework assignments and handouts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Prepare course materials such as syllabuses, homework assignments, and handouts.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Syllabuses, assignments and handouts draw on abundant published subject content AI works from easily.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Revising lesson plans to enhance learning
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: lesson plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Revise lesson plans to enhance learning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Rewriting lesson plans is document work AI handles quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Compiling bibliographies of specialised materials for outside reading assignments
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: bibliographies of specialised materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Compile bibliographies of specialised materials for outside reading assignments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software builds reading lists quickly from published literature, though every reference needs checking that it exists.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing websites for educational courses to enhance learning
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: websites in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Develop websites for educational courses to enhance learning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building a course website is well-documented technical work AI does competently.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Maintaining course websites to ensure up-to-date content and functionality
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: course websites in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Maintain course websites to ensure up-to-date content and functionality.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Updating web content is routine digital work that AI handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Processing student admissions to facilitate their entry into the department
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: student admissions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2311/00
Source: “Process student admissions to facilitate their entry into the department.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Admissions processing runs on published criteria and application data, which university systems already handle.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining student records
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: student records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Maintain student records.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping pupil records up to date is structured office work handled well by school systems.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining attendance records for educational or organisational purposes
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: attendance records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Maintain attendance records for educational or organisational purposes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (62–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Registers are digital and largely automatic, though someone still sees who is actually present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing curricula and materials for training programmes
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: curricula in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Develop curricula and materials for training programmes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting a curriculum and its materials is writing work software does well, subject to approval processes.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Returning assignments to students in accordance with established deadlines
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: assignments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Return assignments to students in accordance with established deadlines.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Returning marked work is now mostly a click in a course system, so it is easy to automate.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing grant proposals to obtain funding for research
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at grant proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Write grant proposals to obtain funding for research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Grant writing follows well-known formats, so software gives a solid draft that the researcher must sharpen.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Selecting and obtaining materials and supplies
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at materials, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Select and obtain materials and supplies, such as textbooks and laboratory equipment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing textbooks and equipment against course needs and budget is documented selection work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing up original research for publication
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at original research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Write up original research for publication.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software helps draft and structure a paper, but the original findings are the researcher's own.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing research proposals for submission to external bodies
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at research proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Write research proposals for submission to external bodies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts proposals, but funders respond to a genuine research idea and the team behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching classes using online technology
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at classes, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Teach classes using online technology.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Online delivery and materials are well supported by software, but the course is still led by an academic.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Assisting in student recruitment, enrolment and placement activities
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles student recruitment, enrolment and placement activities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Assist in student recruitment, enrolment, and placement activities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Enrolment admin follows set steps software handles, though applicants often want to speak to someone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and implementing new teaching methods to reflect changes in research
staying human
The ratings behind this row put new teaching methods well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Develop and implement new teaching methods to reflect changes in research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can propose new teaching approaches, but changing how a course actually runs takes people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising students on academic and career choices
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles students and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Advise students on academic and career choices.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (28–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Good advice on choices rests on knowing the pupil and being someone they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Moderating examinations and assessments
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for examinations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Moderate examinations and assessments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Moderation exists so a qualified academic checks that marking is fair, which is the point of the task.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising undergraduate teaching activities to ensure educational standards are met
staying human
The ratings behind this row put undergraduate teaching activities well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Supervise undergraduate teaching activities to ensure educational standards are met.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can check records and standards, but overseeing teaching means dealing with the people delivering it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organising induction programmes to introduce new students or staff
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: induction programmes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2311/00
Source: “Organise induction programmes to introduce new students or staff.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Software plans the programme and materials well, but induction events happen with people in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in committees and boards to contribute to departmental governance
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles committees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Participate in committees and boards to contribute to departmental governance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Governance work is people meeting and deciding things together.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing professional consulting services to government or industry
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles professional consulting services and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 55 · 2311/00
Source: “Provide professional consulting services to government or industry.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (16–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Consulting is partly documented expertise, but clients hire a named person they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Tutoring students who need additional instruction
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles students who need additional instruction and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Tutor students who need additional instruction.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can explain a topic many ways, but a struggling student usually needs someone who knows them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting seminars for higher education students
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: seminars, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Conduct seminars for higher education students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Seminars run on live discussion between students and a tutor who can steer it as it happens.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Delivering training sessions to staff to improve their expertise
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: sessions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Deliver training sessions to staff to improve their expertise.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can build the training, but delivering it to colleagues and answering them live is done in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising student-led research projects to ensure academic standards
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles student-led research projects and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Supervise student-led research projects to ensure academic standards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising a research project means guiding a particular student's thinking over months as their work develops.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising students' research projects to guide academic development
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles students' research projects and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Supervise students' research projects to guide academic development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Project supervision works through a long relationship in which a tutor shapes how a student thinks.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with colleagues to address teaching and research issues
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles colleagues and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Collaborate with colleagues to address teaching and research issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (7–27 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working through teaching and research problems with colleagues happens in real conversations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating on research projects to enhance the institution's research profile
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles research projects and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Collaborate on research projects to enhance the institution's research profile.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Research collaboration grows out of working relationships and shared judgement between academics.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting discussions to enhance students' competence
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: discussions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Conduct discussions to enhance students' competence.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can prompt good questions, but the discussion that moves a student's thinking happens between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing tutorials
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: tutorials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Provide tutorials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Tutorials work because a tutor responds to a particular student's confusion as it surfaces.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing a group of research students
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles a group of research students and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Manage a group of research students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Managing research students means knowing each of them and how their work and confidence are going.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Overseeing staffing and supervisory responsibilities within the department
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles supervisory responsibilities within the department and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2311/00
Source: “Oversee staffing and supervisory responsibilities within the department.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Line-managing academic staff depends on knowing colleagues and holding difficult conversations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Maintaining regular office hours to meet with students
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: regular office hours, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2311/00
Source: “Maintain regular office hours to meet with students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Being available to students at set times means a person being there, in the office or online.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Serving on university committees to contribute to faculty governance
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: university committees, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2311/00
Source: “Serve on university committees to contribute to faculty governance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Committee work is people debating and deciding together in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing partnerships with industry and educational institutions to enhance university promotion
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles partnerships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Develop partnerships with industry and educational institutions to enhance university promotion.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Partnerships with industry are built on personal trust between people over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Fostering relationships with industrial, commercial and public organisations
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 65 · 2311/00
Source: “Foster relationships with industrial, commercial, and public organisations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Relationships with outside organisations are built person to person and cannot be produced as a document.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Leading discussion groups
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: discussion groups, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2311/00
Source: “Lead discussion groups.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leading a discussion depends on reading the room and drawing out quieter students as the conversation happens.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing pastoral duties as a personal tutor to students
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles pastoral duties and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2311/00
Source: “Perform pastoral duties as a personal tutor to students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Personal tutoring is about a student trusting someone who knows them when things go wrong.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Supervising students' laboratory work
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: students' laboratory work, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2311/00
Source: “Supervise students' laboratory work.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising a lab means being in the room while students work on the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Representing institutions at community and campus events
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: institutions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2311/00
Source: “Represent institutions at community and campus events.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Representing the university at an event means a person being physically present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £52,800a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
People doing this job: 258,500in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: students of the procedures in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: informing students of the procedures for completing and submitting coursework and developing syllabuses as teaching materials. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where discussion groups get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Informing students of the procedures for completing and submitting coursework is going; leading discussion groups is not.

So, given all that: 32% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 15% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 53% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 56 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding: your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes: about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (leading discussion groups) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles leading discussion groups, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to higher education teaching professionals (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was further education teaching professionals: only about 33% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 20.1% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. Your own job splits about 32/68: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “assess and Mark students' work”, and let the exposed end go.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Further education teaching professionals
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “perform pastoral duties as a personal tutor to students”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 33% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 33% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route. It is a pay cut, in those words: £42,218 against your £52,835, 20.1% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 59,800 of those jobs against 258,500 of yours (ONS via Nomis), 23% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Other researchers, unspecified discipline
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “manage a group of research students”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 9% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £44,580 against your £52,835, 15.6% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Teaching assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already prepare course materials such as syllabuses, homework assignments, and handouts, and their equivalent is to distribute tests and homework assignments to students. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £21,239 against your £52,835, 59.8% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 32% of its task weight, across 56 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Business Teachers, Postsecondary is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Business Teachers, Postsecondary, Computer Science Teachers, Postsecondary, Mathematical Science Teachers, Postsecondary, Architecture Teachers, Postsecondary, Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary, Agricultural Sciences Teachers, Postsecondary, Biological Science Teachers, Postsecondary, Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, Postsecondary, Atmospheric, Earth, Marine, and Space Sciences Teachers, Postsecondary, Chemistry Teachers, Postsecondary, Environmental Science Teachers, Postsecondary, Physics Teachers, Postsecondary, Anthropology and Archeology Teachers, Postsecondary, Area, Ethnic, and Cultural Studies Teachers, Postsecondary, Economics Teachers, Postsecondary, Geography Teachers, Postsecondary, Political Science Teachers, Postsecondary, Psychology Teachers, Postsecondary, Sociology Teachers, Postsecondary, Social Sciences Teachers, Postsecondary, All Other, Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary, Nursing Instructors and Teachers, Postsecondary, Education Teachers, Postsecondary, Library Science Teachers, Postsecondary, Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Teachers, Postsecondary, Law Teachers, Postsecondary, Social Work Teachers, Postsecondary, Art, Drama, and Music Teachers, Postsecondary, Communications Teachers, Postsecondary, English Language and Literature Teachers, Postsecondary, Foreign Language and Literature Teachers, Postsecondary, History Teachers, Postsecondary, Philosophy and Religion Teachers, Postsecondary, Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers, Postsecondary, Recreation and Fitness Studies Teachers, Postsecondary, Postsecondary Teachers, All Other and Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for higher education teaching professionals, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 32% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for higher education teaching professionals. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for higher education teaching professionals launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for higher education teaching professionals yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for higher education teaching professionals existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for higher education teaching professionals launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Higher education teaching professionals?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 56 official task statements scored for Higher education teaching professionals (United Kingdom, SOC 2311), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 44 out of 100 (range 38–50, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Higher education teaching professionals” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inform students of the procedures for completing and submitting coursework” (93/100, very high); “Record grades for examinations, assignments, or papers” (93/100, very high); “Develop syllabuses as teaching materials” (83/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Higher education teaching professionals” stay human?: About 53% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Represent institutions at community and campus events” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise students' laboratory work” (6/100, minimal); “Perform pastoral duties as a personal tutor to students” (8/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Higher education teaching professionals” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 53% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Higher education teaching professionals calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 56 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
No importance weighting is published for some of these tasks, so they are treated as equally central, which is a simplification rather than a measurement.
2 tasks scored differently between repeat runs, so their range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
22 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
At least one of this occupation's task rows has no published task-relatedness and falls back to the uniform weight: the documented exception path, not an alternative weighting scheme.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness-with-uniform)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.