US dataswitch to UK
Education Administrators, Postsecondary
directing activities of administrative departments, planning, administering and controlling budgets and formulating strategic plans for the institution. 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: preparing reports on academic or institutional data. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, promoting the university by participating in community, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Plan, direct, or coordinate student instruction, administration, and services, as well as other research and educational activities, at postsecondary institutions, including universities, colleges, and junior and community colleges. The job title says “education administrators” or “postsecondary”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: promoting the university by participating in community. 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 education administrators, postsecondary is not one task. It is 27 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is promoting the university by participating in community, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 28%
- changing shape
- 15%
- staying human
- 58%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 37 out of 100 (31–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 27 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 education administrators, postsecondary 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.
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.
- 1 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.
- 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.
Shifting to AI
7 tasksTasks 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.
Establishing operational policies and procedures and making any necessary modifications
This is reading one thing and writing another: operational policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Establish operational policies and procedures and make any necessary modifications, based on analysis of operations, demographics, and other research information.” (O*NET 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: Writing and updating policies from operational data is well-documented desk work.
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.
Preparing reports on academic or institutional data
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare reports on academic or institutional data.” (O*NET 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: Turning institutional data into written reports is one of the things software does most reliably.
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.
Designing or using assessments to monitor student learning outcomes
This is reading one thing and writing another: assessments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design or use assessments to monitor student learning outcomes.” (O*NET 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: Building assessments and reading the results is document and data work that software 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 3/4.
Planning, administering and controlling budgets, maintaining financial records and producing financial reports
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets, maintaining financial records and producing financial reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan, administer, and control budgets, maintain financial records, and produce financial reports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 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: Budget tracking and financial reporting are the kind of numbers work software already does.
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
5 tasksTasks 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.
Advising students on issues, course selection, progress toward graduation and career decisions
The software now makes the first pass at students, 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 4 · CoreSource: “Advise students on issues such as course selection, progress toward graduation, and career decisions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course rules and graduation checks are documented, yet career choices still lean on a trusted conversation.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing curricula and recommending curricula revisions and additions
The software now makes the first pass at curricula, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop curricula, and recommend curricula revisions and additions.” (O*NET 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: Curriculum drafting and revision is document work with plenty of published models to draw on.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conferring with other academic staff to explain and formulate admission requirements and course credit policies
The software now makes the first pass at other academic staff, 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 3 · SupplementalSource: “Confer with other academic staff to explain and formulate admission requirements and course credit policies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 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: The rules are documented, but agreeing them means talking colleagues through the trade-offs.
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 3/4.
Staying human
15 tasksTasks 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.
Participating in faculty and college committee activities
This work happens in the physical world: faculty, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in faculty and college committee activities.” (O*NET 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 sitting together and talking things through.
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.
Promoting the university by participating in community
This work happens in the physical world: the university, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Promote the university by participating in community, state, and national events or meetings, and by developing partnerships with industry and secondary education institutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 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: Building partnerships happens face to face at events and meetings.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Representing institutions at community and campus events
This work happens in the physical world: institutions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Represent institutions at community and campus events, in meetings with other institution personnel, and during accreditation processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 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 college in person is the whole point of the task.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 17 tasks
Determining course schedules
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: course schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Determine course schedules, and coordinate teaching assignments and room assignments to ensure optimum use of buildings and equipment.” (O*NET 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: Timetabling is a solved scheduling problem, though staff preferences need a person to smooth over.
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.
Coordinating the production and dissemination of university publications
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the production in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Coordinate the production and dissemination of university publications, such as course catalogs and class schedules.” (O*NET 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: Catalogs and schedules are assembled from records that already exist, though production still needs chasing.
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.
Reviewing registration statistics and consulting with faculty officials to develop registration policies
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: registration statistics in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Review registration statistics, and consult with faculty officials to develop registration policies.” (O*NET 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: Reading registration numbers and drafting policy from them is straightforward data and document work.
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.
Directing scholarship, fellowship and loan programs, performing activities, selecting recipients and distributing aid
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at scholarship, fellowship and loan programs, performing activities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Direct scholarship, fellowship, and loan programs, performing activities such as selecting recipients and distributing aid.” (O*NET 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: Eligibility checks and aid calculations are rules-based work software handles; awards still get signed off.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing grants to procure external funding
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at grants, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Write grants to procure external funding, and supervise grant-funded projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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 a solid proposal, though a funder-specific pitch and running the project need expert hands.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in student recruitment, selection and admission, making admissions recommendations
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles student recruitment, selection and admission, making admissions recommendations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Participate in student recruitment, selection, and admission, making admissions recommendations when required to do so.” (O*NET 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: Applications can be screened automatically; the final admissions call and recruiting still involve people.
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.
Formulating strategic plans for the institution
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles strategic plans and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Formulate strategic plans for the institution.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software drafts credible plans, but a strategy only sticks when leaders talk it through and commit.
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 2/4.
Consulting with government regulatory and licensing agencies to ensure the institution's conformance with applicable standards
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles government regulatory and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Consult with government regulatory and licensing agencies to ensure the institution's conformance with applicable standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Compliance rules are written down, but the conversation with the agency is handled person to person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing activities of administrative departments
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles activities of administrative departments and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Direct activities of administrative departments, such as admissions, registration, and career services.” (O*NET 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: Software can run the reporting, but steering admissions and registration teams is a people job.
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.
Directing, coordinating and evaluating the activities of personnel
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the activities of personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct, coordinate, and evaluate the activities of personnel, including support staff engaged in administering academic institutions, departments, or alumni organizations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can track and summarize work, but directing staff day to day depends on the working relationship.
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.
Reviewing student misconduct reports requiring disciplinary action
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles student misconduct reports requiring disciplinary action and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Review student misconduct reports requiring disciplinary action, and counsel students regarding such reports.” (O*NET 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Reviewing the paperwork can be automated; the disciplinary conversation with the student cannot.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Recruiting, hiring, training and terminating departmental personnel
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles departmental personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recruit, hire, train, and terminate departmental personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Job ads and screening can be automated, but hiring and firing conversations rest on people.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning and promoting sporting events and social
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: events, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Plan and promote sporting events and social, cultural, and recreational activities.” (O*NET 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: Planning can be drafted automatically, but running social and sporting events means being there.
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.
Providing assistance to faculty and staff in duties
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: assistance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide assistance to faculty and staff in duties such as teaching classes, conducting orientation programs, issuing transcripts, and scheduling events.” (O*NET 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: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A mixed bag: transcripts can be automated, while classes and orientations mean standing in front of 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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Appointing individuals to faculty positions
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles individuals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Appoint individuals to faculty positions, and evaluate their performance.” (O*NET 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: Appointments and performance reviews are judgments about colleagues that people expect a person to make.
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.
Teaching courses within their department
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: courses within their department, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Teach courses within their department.” (O*NET 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: Teaching a class is done in front of students.
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.
Directing and participating in institutional fundraising activities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: institutional fundraising activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Direct and participate in institutional fundraising activities, and encourage alumni participation in such activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 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: Donors give to people they know, usually 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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $104,590a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 180,470in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
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: operational policies in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing reports on academic or institutional data and establishing operational policies and procedures and making any necessary modifications. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where the university gets 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. Preparing reports on academic or institutional data is going; promoting the university by participating in community is not.
So, given all that: 28% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 15% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 58% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 27 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 (promoting the university by participating in community) 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 promoting the university by participating in community, 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, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to education administrators, postsecondary (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was history teachers, postsecondary: only about 5% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 19.9% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 37/100 here, with only 28% of the task list in the top band, and “participate in faculty and college committee activities” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US 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.
History Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already teach courses within their department, and their equivalent is to teach community courses and speak to local groups and organizations. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $83,820 against your $104,590, 19.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 18,790 of those jobs against 180,470 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 10% as many seats.
Business Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already advise students on issues such as course selection, progress toward graduation, and career…, and their equivalent is to advise students on academic and vocational curricula and career issues. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Mathematical Science Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already appoint individuals to faculty positions, and evaluate their performance, and their equivalent is to conduct faculty performance evaluations. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $79,940 against your $104,590, 23.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 28% of its task weight, across 27 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 States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Head teachers and principals is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Head teachers and principals and Education managers. 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.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for education administrators / postsecondary, 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 28% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
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 education administrators / postsecondary. 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 education administrators / postsecondary 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 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 Education Administrators, Postsecondary?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Education Administrators, Postsecondary (United States, SOC 11-9033), 28% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 37 out of 100 (range 31–44, band: low). 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 “Education Administrators, Postsecondary” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Design or use assessments to monitor student learning outcomes” (75/100, high); “Prepare reports on academic or institutional data” (75/100, high); “Plan, administer, and control budgets, maintain financial records, and produce financial reports” (66/100, 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 “Education Administrators, Postsecondary” stay human?
- About 58% 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: “Promote the university by participating in community, state, and national events or meetings, and by developing partnerships with industry and secondary educ…” (4/100, minimal); “Represent institutions at community and campus events, in meetings with other institution personnel, and during accreditation processes” (4/100, minimal); “Participate in faculty and college committee activities” (11/100, 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 “Education Administrators, Postsecondary” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 28% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 58% 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 Education Administrators, Postsecondary 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 27 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 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.
- 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
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
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.
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}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . 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.