The future of degree programs in Australian higher education is not disappearance but redesign. The bachelor and masters degree will remain the credential that employers, professional bodies and the migration system recognise, because nothing else certifies three or four years of cumulative learning at a defined AQF level. What changes is how the degree is delivered, how it is assessed in a world of generative AI, and how it is packaged alongside shorter credentials.
This article sets out the evidence I weigh when a prospective provider asks whether a degree is still worth building, and where the pressure is real. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA registration and course accreditation work with private providers, most of whom asked the same question.
Are degrees losing value?
The honest answer is that degrees are losing their monopoly, not their value. The Department of Education's Graduate Outcomes Survey has, year after year, shown that graduate employment recovers strongly in the years after completion and that graduates earn more over a working life than people without a degree. Employers still filter on the qualification for graduate roles, and the accredited professions still require it.
What has weakened is the assumption that a degree is the only thing worth buying. Undergraduate certificates, graduate certificates and micro-credentials now sit beside it, and some employers are prepared to hire on demonstrated skill rather than a testamur. That is competition at the margins. In my experience providers who abandon the degree for short courses alone find that students still want the qualification that appears on the AQF and on the National Register.
The employer signal is more mixed than the headlines suggest
Announcements that large employers have dropped degree requirements make news. What I see in practice is narrower: employers drop the requirement for roles where a specific technical skill matters more than breadth, and keep it where judgment, writing and analysis matter. A software company may hire a self-taught developer. It will still want a qualified accountant to sign its accounts.
The signal that matters for a provider is not "do employers want degrees" but "which degrees, with what evidence of capability". A bachelor degree whose outcomes are written to the AQF level 7 descriptors and whose assessment produces work a graduate can show an employer is in a stronger position than one whose outcomes are generic. Standard 1.4 of the Threshold Standards already requires that assessment demonstrates learning outcomes, and I expect that requirement to be read more strictly, not less.
Short credentials compete with the degree and feed it
Micro-credentials and undergraduate certificates are usually presented as the degree's rivals. In fifteen years I have watched them become its feeders. A provider that offers a well-designed graduate certificate that articulates into a masters, with credit under Standard 1.2, recruits students who would never have committed to two years at the outset. The short credential lowers the barrier to entry; the degree remains the destination.
The question of whether short credentials will replace the degree is taken up directly in are micro-credentials the future of higher education. My view is that the two are converging into stackable structures, and that the providers who win are those whose academic boards have designed the stack deliberately rather than bolting a short course onto a degree after the fact.
What generative AI changes about the future of degree programs
Generative AI does not threaten the degree as a credential. It threatens the degree as it has commonly been assessed. If a student can produce a passable essay, report or code sample with a language model, then an award built on unsupervised written work certifies less than it did. TEQSA has said as much in its 2023 and 2025 assessment reform publications, and its 2025 guidance on enacting assessment reform moves from principle to practice.
The degree that survives is one where the academic board can point to secured assessment points across the program at which capability was demonstrated in person or under supervision, and where students are taught to work with the tools. That is a redesign of the course, not a retreat from it. It is also, in my experience, the area where TEQSA's scrutiny of new course applications has sharpened most since 2024.
What this means for providers building a degree now
For a prospective provider, the implications are three. Build the degree at the AQF level the profession recognises, and write the outcomes to the level descriptors. Design the assessment for the AI era from the first draft rather than retrofitting it after accreditation. And plan the short credentials that feed the degree as part of the same architecture, so that credit and articulation are settled in the academic board's approval.
Traditional degrees still make up most of the accreditation work we do, and TEQSA's approach to them is discussed in TEQSA consultants and traditional degree programs. Where the standards themselves are heading is the subject of TEQSA standards and the future of higher education in Australia.
My view: the degree persists, the course changes
I have heard the degree declared obsolete roughly every three years since I started this work. Each time, the providers I work with have kept enrolling students into degrees, because the credential does something no alternative does. It certifies sustained learning at a level defined by a national framework, assured by an independent regulator, and recognised by employers and professions that cannot evaluate every applicant from first principles.
The future of degree programs is one in which that certification is harder to earn and more clearly evidenced, delivered in more flexible modes, and surrounded by shorter credentials that lead into it. A provider that designs for that future will find TEQSA a straightforward regulator to deal with. One that builds a 2015 degree and hopes for the best will not.
Download the Darlo New Course Readiness Checklist
— a one-page self-assessment for a degree proposal against Standards 1.4, 3.1 and 5.1, drawn from our TEQSA registration and course accreditation work with private providers. Get the checklist
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Are bachelor degrees still worth offering as a new private provider?
Yes. The bachelor degree remains the credential employers, professional bodies and the migration system recognise, and in my experience it is the qualification students at private providers most often want. The design and assessment need to reflect the current environment, but the demand is there.
Will micro-credentials replace degrees?
Not in my view. Micro-credentials and graduate certificates are becoming feeders into degrees through credit and articulation under Standard 1.2, rather than substitutes for them.
How does generative AI affect the value of a degree?
It affects how the degree must be assessed rather than whether it is valued. TEQSA's assessment reform publications expect providers to secure assessment points across a program so that the award still certifies the graduate's own capability.
What AQF level should a new degree be pitched at?
The level the relevant profession and employers recognise, which for most entry-level professional roles is AQF level 7 (bachelor) and for postgraduate conversion courses AQF level 9 (masters). The learning outcomes should be written to the level descriptors published by the AQF.
Dr Brendan Moloney is CEO of Darlo Higher Education, Australia's largest specialist TEQSA consultancy. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, is a Cambridge University Press author on governance in higher education, and has advised private providers on registration and course accreditation for more than fifteen years.