US dataswitch to UK
Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, Postsecondary
preparing course materials, such as syllabi, homework assignments and handouts, compiling, administering and initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions. 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: maintaining student attendance records, grades and other required records. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Teach courses in forestry and conservation science. Includes both teachers primarily engaged in teaching and those who do a combination of teaching and research. The job title says “forestry”, “conservation science teachers” or “postsecondary”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions. 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 forestry and conservation science teachers, postsecondary is not one task. It is 25 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 22%
- changing shape
- 23%
- staying human
- 54%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 25 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 forestry and conservation science teachers, 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 2026-08-05. 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.
- 8 tasks scored differently between repeat runs, so their range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- 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.
- 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
5 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.
Preparing course materials, such as syllabi, homework assignments and handouts
This is reading one thing and writing another: course materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare course materials, such as syllabi, homework assignments, and handouts.” (O*NET 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 are well-documented formats software drafts strongly, needing tailoring to the specific course.
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.
Evaluating and grading students' class work
This is reading one thing and writing another: students' class work in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate and grade students' class work, assignments, and papers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 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: Marking written work against a rubric is something software now does to a standard most instructors accept after checking.
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 student attendance records, grades and other required records
This is reading one thing and writing another: student attendance records, grades and other required records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain student attendance records, grades, and other required records.” (O*NET 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: Attendance, grades and required records are structured data that student systems already maintain.
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.
Planning, evaluating and revising curricula, course content and course materials and methods of instruction
This is reading one thing and writing another: curricula, course content and course materials and methods in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan, evaluate, and revise curricula, course content, and course materials and methods of instruction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 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: Planning and revising a curriculum is document work, with plenty of published course structures 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 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
6 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.
Keeping abreast of developments in the field by reading current literature
The software now makes the first pass at abreast of developments, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Keep abreast of developments in the field by reading current literature, talking with colleagues, and participating in professional conferences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (31–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: AI can summarize new literature quickly, but conferences and colleague conversations still carry part of it.
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 4/4.
Compiling, administering and grading examinations or assigning this work
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 4 · CoreSource: “Compile, administer, and grade examinations, or assign this work to others.” (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: Writing and marking exams is well-suited to software; proctoring the exam room still puts a person there.
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.
Conducting research in a particular field of knowledge and publishing findings in books
The software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct research in a particular field of knowledge and publish findings in books, professional journals, or electronic media.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 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: Writing up research is well supported by AI, but doing the research is the researcher's work.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
14 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.
Collaborating with colleagues to address teaching and research issues
The value here is that a specific person handles colleagues and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with colleagues to address teaching and research issues.” (O*NET 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.
Initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions
This work happens in the physical world: classroom discussions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Initiate, facilitate, and moderate classroom discussions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (0–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
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 good class discussion depends on the teacher reading the room live.
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.
Advising students on academic and vocational curricula and on career issues
The value here is that a specific person handles students and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise students on academic and vocational curricula and on career issues.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 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: Course and career advice matters most when it comes from someone who knows the student.
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 2/4.
Show the other 15 tasks
Compiling bibliographies of specialized materials for outside reading assignments
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: bibliographies of specialized materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Compile bibliographies of specialized materials for outside reading assignments.” (O*NET 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: Compiling reading lists draws on abundant published sources, though citations need checking for accuracy.
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.
Writing grant proposals to procure external research funding
changing shapeThe 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 4 · CoreSource: “Write grant proposals to procure external research funding.” (O*NET 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: AI drafts a strong proposal quickly, but matching it to a specific funder still needs substantial expert editing.
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.
Reviewing papers for colleagues and scientific journals
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at papers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Review papers for colleagues and scientific journals.” (O*NET 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: AI can summarize a paper, but judging whether the research stands up is expert work.
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 shapeThe 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 3 · CoreSource: “Select and obtain materials and supplies, such as textbooks and laboratory equipment.” (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: 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.
Preparing and delivering lectures to undergraduate or graduate students on topics
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles lectures and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare and deliver lectures to undergraduate or graduate students on topics, such as forest resource policy, forest pathology, and mapping.” (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: Lecture notes are easy to draft, but delivering a class still runs on a person in the room.
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 humanThe value here is that a specific person handles professional consulting services and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Provide professional consulting services to government or industry.” (O*NET 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.
Performing administrative duties, such as serving as department head
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles administrative duties and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Perform administrative duties, such as serving as department head.” (O*NET 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: Department administration mixes documents software drafts with decisions made among colleagues.
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.
Participating in student recruitment, registration and placement activities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: student recruitment, registration and placement activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Participate in student recruitment, registration, and placement 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: Recruitment and registration paperwork can be automated, but open days and placement meetings happen 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.
Providing information to the public by leading workshops and training programs and by developing educational materials
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: information, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Provide information to the public by leading workshops and training programs and by developing educational materials.” (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: Workshop materials draft easily, though running the workshop means being with the group.
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.
Serving on academic or administrative committees that deal with institutional policies
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles academic and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Serve on academic or administrative committees that deal with institutional policies, departmental matters, and academic issues.” (O*NET 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: Committee work is about being in the room where decisions are argued out.
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.
Supervising undergraduate or graduate teaching
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles undergraduate and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise undergraduate or graduate teaching, internship, and research work.” (O*NET 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: Supervising a student's teaching or research means knowing that person and their progress 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 2/4.
Maintaining regularly scheduled office hours to advise and assist students
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: scheduled office hours, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain regularly scheduled office hours to advise and assist students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (0–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
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: Office hours exist so students can talk something through with a person they know.
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.
Acting as advisers to student organizations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: advisers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Act as advisers to student organizations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 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: Advising a student society depends on a live relationship with the students running it.
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 1/4.
Supervising students' laboratory or field work
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: students' laboratory, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise students' laboratory or field work.” (O*NET 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 dig or lab session means being there while students handle the material.
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.
Participating in campus and community events
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: campus, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Participate in campus and community events.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
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: Turning up to campus and community events means being there in person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $101,420a 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
- 1,520in 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: student attendance records, grades and other required records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining student attendance records, grades and other required records and preparing course materials, such as syllabi, homework assignments and handouts. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where classroom discussions 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. Maintaining student attendance records, grades and other required records is going; initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions is not.
So, given all that: 22% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 23% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 54% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 25 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 (initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions) 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 initiating, facilitating and moderating classroom discussions, 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 forestry and conservation science teachers, postsecondary (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was social work teachers, postsecondary: only about 29% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 23.5% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 39/100 here, with only 22% of the task list in the top band, and “keep abreast of developments in the field by reading current literature, talking…” 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.
Social Work Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise students' laboratory or field work, and their equivalent is to supervise students' laboratory and field work. Across both published task lists that is about 29% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 29% 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: $77,570 against your $101,420, 23.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise students' laboratory or field work, and their equivalent is to supervise students' laboratory work. Across both published task lists that is about 28% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 28% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route.
Environmental Science Teachers, Postsecondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise students' laboratory or field work, and their equivalent is to supervise students' laboratory and field work. Across both published task lists that is about 25% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 25% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route.
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: 22% of its task weight, across 25 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 Higher education teaching professionals 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
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Higher education teaching professionals. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
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 forestry / conservation science teachers / 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 22% 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 forestry / conservation science teachers / 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 forestry / conservation science teachers / 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 Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, Postsecondary?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 25 official task statements scored for Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, Postsecondary (United States, SOC 25-1043), 22% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 39 out of 100 (range 32–46, 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 “Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, Postsecondary” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain student attendance records, grades, and other required records” (93/100, very high); “Prepare course materials, such as syllabi, homework assignments, and handouts” (83/100, very high); “Compile bibliographies of specialized materials for outside reading assignments” (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 “Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, Postsecondary” stay human?
- About 54% 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: “Participate in campus and community events” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise students' laboratory or field work” (6/100, minimal); “Act as advisers to student organizations” (7/100, 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 “Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, Postsecondary” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 22% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 54% 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 Forestry and Conservation Science Teachers, 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 25 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
- 8 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.
- 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 2026-08-05.
- 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.