BY JORIE SOLTIC – Universities are increasingly expected to keep their doors open beyond graduation. Lifelong learning is no longer a luxury, but a societal necessity. What does this mean for the roles and funding of universities?

A New (Core) Mission?

Universities find themselves at a crossroads when it comes to their role in lifelong learning (ULLL). Although they are traditionally focused on research and ‘initial’ higher education (bachelor’s and master’s degrees), the expectations that they play an active role in reskilling and upskilling in an ever-evolving society are growing rapidly. As centres of knowledge, and as guardians of critical reflection and research ethics, universities also have the potential to make a significant impact in this area.

Who’s Going to Pay the Bill?

Unlike subsidised bachelor’s and master’s programmes, university lifelong learning in Belgium (and in many other European countries) receives little public funding.[1] Eucen, the largest European association for University Lifelong Learning (ULLL), confirms this trend. Their latest report (2024) states: “The financing of lifelong learning activities varies across Europe, with universities increasingly reliant on self-funding”.  In practice, this means universities must make their ULLL products financially sustainable, often relying on participant fees.

A key question is: who finances the costs? Funding can come from different sources; the participant themselves or their employers. According to the European project University Strategies and Business Models for Lifelong Learning , this largely depends on the content of the study programme: “Is it likely that employers will pay the tuition because the course has a direct relevance for companies; or will it have to be paid out of the learner’s own budget because the course is more likely to be part of a personal career planning?” Research by Cabus (2020) confirms the importance of that employer support; there is a clear positive correlation between employer funding and participation in lifelong learning; not a particularly surprising finding.

What Does ‘The Market’ Demand?

This funding model forces universities to view ULLL services through an economic lens: which study programmes are profitable, which investments yield returns, and how large is the market for a specific programme?  The business model comes first.

The consequence is clear: the focus shifts to programmes with a strong market demand, where employers or professionals are willing to pay a premium. Companies primarily invest in programmes that address immediate workplace needs.  This makes it harder to market programmes which are focused on critical reflection, ethical issues, long-term perspectives, or interdisciplinary thinking. The same applies to programmes that promote cultural, social, or personal development, which lack a direct link to job or market value.

What Does This Mean in Practice?

As a programme coordinator at PUC – KU Leuven Continue, I see these market dynamics daily.
Within our professional training portfolio, significant differences emerge. For instance, cybersecurity study programmes are currently struggling compared to those in AI. AI is perceived as offering a quicker return on investment, whereas cybersecurity is often seen, at least in perception, as a long-term concern.  Sadly, sustainability-related topics are also suffering from this issue. Even within our AI programmes, we notice stark contrasts at the micro level. Programmes that are strongly driven by applications, such as those on AI prompt engineering, or which address legal requirements, such as the AI Act, attract significantly more participants than programmes on ethical AI or Sustainable AI.  The market also demands shorter, more focused programmes. In contrast, intensive, multidisciplinary year-long courses, such as ‘postgraduate’ programmes covering systemic thinking and complex themes such as smart logistics or sustainable building, are harder to sell in today’s ‘quick-win’ environment. Similarly, personal development courses, such as astronomy or art view, are only viable if offered for minimal fees.

Where Does This Leave the Social Mission?

These broader, academically enriching, and socially relevant programmes risk being overshadowed by the pressure for immediate financial viability. This is where the challenge lies.

Universities are not merely economic entities; they have a social mission. They are uniquely positioned to look beyond immediate market demands and critically consider what society will need in the long run. Their role is not just to produce employable graduates through their programmes, but to cultivate critical thinkers and engaged citizens.

What Do Policymakers and Society Expect?

This social mission is widely accepted in the context of universities’ traditional core tasks, such as research and bachelor’s and master’s programmes. But how does ULLL fit into all this? What are the expectations from policymakers and society in general?

Personally, I believe it would be a missed opportunity for universities to limit themselves to purely demand-driven education. Universities are more than lifelong service providers for the labour market. I’m not advocating a simplistic call for more subsidies or ULLL funding; in times of budgetary constraints, that would be unrealistic.

However, I do call for greater clarity. What are the policy expectations for ULLL, from both the government and society? What is the vision underlying the balance between economic needs and the broader societal mission of universities in lifelong learning?

Bibliography

Eucen (2024). University lifelong learning: Embracing challenges and opportunities (author: Paschoud, P.): https://eucen.eu https://eucen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PParticleULLL_Sep2024.pdf

Cabus, S., et al. (2020). Multi-layered perspective on the barriers to learning participation of disadvantaged adults. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(5), 502-519. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40955-020-00162-3

Soltic, J., & Seynhaeve, B. (2024). Strategic stacking: The integrated modular approach to industry-driven lifelong learning. eucen Studies, 8(2), 40-55. https://eucenstudies.eucen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/04_ejull8-2_soltic_final.pdf

USBM Project (2010). Organizing lifelong learning: A report on university strategies and business models for lifelong learning in higher education. (authors: Bang, J. et al.)(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230788421_Organising_Lifelong_Learning_A_Report_on_University_Strategies_and_Business_Models_for_Lifelong_learning_in_Higher_Education

Flemish Education Council (VLOR). (2021). Breaking down barriers to lifelong learning in higher education: Advice for the Flemish Action Plan on Lifelong Learning. Flemish Education Council. https://www.vlor.be/adviezen/drempels-wegwerken-voor-het-levenslang-leren-het-hoger-onderwijs#:~:text=De%20Vlor%20legt%20een%20paar%20drempels%20bloot%20en,regering%20haar%20beleid%20inzake%20levenslang%20leren%20kan%20aanscherpen.

Flemish Education Council (VLOR). (2023). Microcredentials in Flanders. Flemish Education Council. https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/61327

[1] For clarification: by ULLL, I refer to both formal and non-formal educational products specifically designed for lifelong learning (LLL). This includes study programmes for professionals as well as personal development courses, such as those offered by PUC – KU Leuven Continue. These programmes are designed for and tailored to those who typically have to balance their work and family life. I’m explicitly not referring to the flexible access to regular— subsidised — bachelor’s or master’s programmes through credit contracts (now also referred to as ‘microcredentials’).