Today’s learners expect more than a rigid, one-size-fits-all model from higher education. Institutions that want to stay relevant must embrace flexibility, align with industry needs and prioritize real-world skill development over tradition. In this interview, Abram Hedtke discusses how competency-based education empowers students and why institutions must use data and future-focused strategies to meet learner needs.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): What makes competency-based education a powerful approach in higher education today?
Abram Hedtke (AH): Learning demands are changing quicker than ever. Higher education should be about the learner, not the institution. Competency-based education (CBE) drives that shift, aligning education with what students truly need. It’s student-centric. As a former educator, I remember using backward design in K-12, and higher ed should take a similar approach.
It’s unrealistic to expect students to follow one learning model for fourteen years, then change it completely as they maneuver to focus on career training and upskilling. Education should create industry leaders—not just bosses but people who drive projects forward at every level.
Higher ed must evolve beyond rigid degree structures to an à la carte model. My former colleague, Dr. Carrie Wandler, who’s with Midwestern Higher Education Compact, said, “Education has to be more than a flat pathway,” and CBE makes that possible. It gives students real control over their learning, just like Montessori or STEM-based schools. We should apply that same strategy to higher education.
Evo: What strategies can institutions use to ensure those programs remain agile and responsive to constantly evolving industry demand?
AH: When thinking about strategy, I see two key areas. First is data, data, data. Institutions have tons of it, but they need to use it strategically. Look at which careers graduates are entering and rethink what it means to be a graduate—not just someone with a degree but anyone who’s gained a skill set—then assess how programs support those careers and related fields.
But it’s not enough to design programs based on current demand. Institutions must take a future-focused approach by looking ahead five, ten, fifteen years to determine what learners will need to stay in their industry, upskill or pivot.
Take mechanical engineering; students may start as engineers but later need leadership skills. Should they return for a business degree? A leadership program? Institutions should anticipate these needs and create flexible, à la carte pathways that allow learners to stack credentials in ways that make sense for their careers.
The second strategy is integrated majors. Some institutions are already offering them, but more should. Integrated majors allow schools to sustain low-enrollment programs while keeping expert faculty. For students, it means adding complementary skills—think cybersecurity with communications coursework—to make them stand out. It’s about becoming academically distinct.
Higher ed also has an opportunity to leverage faculty expertise. Many instructors come from industry. What additional skills do they need? A computer science professor might know programming inside out, but communication skills are critical for working on diverse teams. Institutions should be asking: How do we not only support students but also elevate our faculty?
Evo: How can institutions design effective assessments that truly measure competency levels while maintaining academic rigor and credibility?
AH: This might be the most important question we’ve discussed—the crux of the conversation. How do we create assessments that truly measure competency while maintaining credibility?
First, let’s move away from the idea that rigor alone equals effectiveness. Harder assessments are not always more meaningful. Instead, we should focus on credibility, ensuring assessments actually demonstrate a student’s earned skill set, which means offering multiple ways to show competency. If we require every student to write a 20-page paper, we’re limiting how they can prove their knowledge. CBE is student-centric, so why shouldn’t assessments be?
Students should have options in how they’re assessed, which connects to how learning experiences are designed. A flexible, student-focused approach recognizes that learners enter programs at different levels. Through faculty mentorship, some students may need foundational support, while others can advance more quickly—not to finish sooner but to ensure everyone reaches mastery.
Lastly, higher ed needs to listen to industry. Some fields like nursing already do this well, defining clear competency expectations. Other industries haven’t had that same voice in shaping education. Institutions should be asking what industry expects in both technical and essential skills. The more higher ed aligns with these needs, the more effective and credible assessments will be.
Evo: What are the most effective ways to engage employers in truly recognizing and valuing competency-based credentials?
AH: At the core, this comes down to skills-based recognition. A degree matters, showing commitment and effort, but employers increasingly want to see specific skills, not just a transcript with course names and grades. A digital wallet or resume that highlights concrete competencies—leadership, technical skills and proficiency levels—would provide more meaningful insight. Not every credential signifies mastery, and that’s okay. If an employer knows a candidate has foundational leadership skills but advanced technical expertise, they can tailor their training accordingly.
We’ve seen industries swing between approaches. Consider P-12 education. Teachers once needed both an education degree and a subject degree. Afterwards, the focus shifted to subject knowledge with separate licensure, leaving some struggling in the classroom. The result? High dropout rates in the first three years. What if, instead, programs embedded developmental psychology, conflict management and social-emotional learning earlier on?
The same applies to other fields. A mechanical engineer, for example, might master technical skills in school but only learn leadership and collaboration on the job. If programs integrated strategic, skills-based microcredentials, institutions could guide students on when and where to earn them. That would create not just an academically distinct graduate but a workforce-ready professional from day one.
Evo: What are some key considerations for successfully expanding CBE programs while maintaining quality and consistency, and where do you see it going?
AH: Expanding CBE successfully starts with stakeholder buy-in—real buy-in, not just a survey or passive outreach. Higher ed needs to move beyond working in silos and bring industry leaders, institutional leaders and faculty into the process. Nursing is a great example. Colleges partnered with hospitals because they knew the field evolves rapidly. That model should be applied across industries.
Faculty, as facilitators of learning, play a critical role in designing courses, learning experiences and assessments, but we also need to listen to learners. They already value competency-based education, even if they don’t call it that. How do they want to learn? How can they demonstrate achievements along the way instead of waiting four years for a degree? Research and engagement with students will ensure CBE meets their needs.
As for where CBE is going, it has to be the future. If higher ed doesn’t embrace it in the next five to ten years, it risks losing credibility and relevance. The learning model that works best for young students—Montessori-style choice and flexibility—is exactly what CBE offers. It supports both technical and essential skill development, making students workforce ready.
Ultimately, higher education was designed 400 years ago for a different socioeconomic and business model. CBE has the power to move it forward, breaking from outdated structures to create a system that actually serves today’s learners.
Evo: Is there anything you’d like to add?
AH: Higher ed isn’t broken, but it needs refinement—especially in how it supports today’s ever-evolving students. The reality is that industry has always told us what it needs. The question is whether we’re listening. Higher education should take its own advice and become a better listener—to both students and employers.
One last piece is backward design—starting with learning outcomes and working backward to ensure students achieve them. CBE is a powerful way to implement this design, though other approaches exist. Additionally, the role of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), when combined with CBE, creates a truly student-centered system, one that ensures every student walks out the door—or across the stage—equipped with the skills and resources to succeed. And ultimately, isn’t that the mission of every institution?
You Might Also Like
