Innovate and excel

Our education pillar: Research-driven, effective and efficient

As an educational institution, KU Leuven strives for future-oriented, research-driven education. In doing so, it profiles itself as a comprehensive university that wants to be a leader in, and recognises the importance of, all disciplines in the three science groups. It gives maximum support to the innovations initiated by the faculties in the educational offering.

1. We are committed to efficiency, effectiveness and rationalisation in our education. We must dare to reduce the complexity of our educational offering and ask ourselves how to keep educational assignments manageable in a responsible way. If we want to keep the workload under control without sacrificing quality, we must dare to reduce the number of course units we offer and review the need for all kinds of tasks and assignments. This will benefit students, teachers, support staff and education services. After all, in some programmes, students groan under an inflation of assignments for different course units. Teachers often feel under pressure to offer very different forms of education within different course units. Through rationalisation, we can make better use of scarce resources and improve the quality of education, without compromising the goals and core values of our university. Study time measurements are certainly desirable here too. We do not advocate a one-size-fits-all approach for all faculties: some diversity will be necessary, according to the specific contexts of faculties and programmes. We also want to fully recognise the ownership of faculties and education committees in this reform. However, we invite everyone to dare to reflect on the great variation in approach as well as in regulations within our university: after all, all these different regulations need to be maintained and applied. This not only reduces transparency for students and lecturers who are increasingly crossing the boundaries of their own faculty, it also creates a large amount of work that we could avoid by taking a more uniform approach.
2. The university should fully value teaching tasks, including in promotion policy, and take initiatives to better measure, monitor and raise the quality of education where necessary. We integrate social aspects such as sustainability or social engagement in measuring and evaluating the quality of education in addition to substantive themes. We want to further encourage the latter in the form of service learning, a form of learning that combines academic learning with social service, where students reflect on their experiences to grow both personally and professionally. We put ‘high expectation learning’ at the forefront, with teaching staff motivating all students to reach their full individual potential. To do this, we need to create a teaching environment that builds on trust, motivates, and leads to work attitudes that put teaching excellence first. We are exploring how to further recognise teaching excellence in the ZAP’s remit. Along the same lines, we are looking at how we can strengthen and more broadly embed COBRA quality assurance – and, in particular, the structural involvement of the declining field of work, alumni and international experts in the evaluation of our education – so that, as a university, we are credibly and forward-looking prepared for the next institutional review.
3. We are working towards a more inclusive education policy. We give representatives of faculty teaching departments a stronger voice in education policy by, for example, inviting one representative from a small faculty, one from a medium-sized faculty and one from a large faculty to sit on the Education Council. The Education Council and the office are essential to formulate ideas and opinions for the Gebu and the Academic Council. Initiatives from the grassroots, namely the faculties, get to the Education Council faster if representation of faculty teaching support staff is also at the table, given their close involvement in the development, support and quality assurance of education.
4. We will ensure that good teacher evaluations are equally considered in appraisals and promotions. We will also review and evaluate the four dimensions within the new appraisal framework recently introduced for ZAP/OP3 evaluations in its completeness, and involve vice-deans of education in these processes even better. Teaching is still too often seen as a secondary task by lecturers, as there is a perception that research output is valued more in evaluations. Although teaching efforts do factor into ZAP/OP3 evaluations, there are still teachers who disregard a lesser or negative evaluation. This is frustrating not only for their students but also for their colleagues and the ATP and ABAP who help shape this teaching. We give Permanent Teaching Committees (POCs), faculties and departments the tools to intervene when lecturers are repeatedly negatively evaluated on teaching. We are integrating this into the new ZAP evaluation framework approved last year and rolled out this academic year.
5. We want to further integrate innovative learning environments into every curriculum. A modern university requires a blending of physical and digital learning methods. Not all teaching moments need to be organised with physical presence of both teacher and student. We want to make that blending as quality as possible by making the capabilities of our learning platforms as widely known as possible and providing our teachers with the necessary training to deliver quality blended education. We need to ensure that not only starting ZAP are taught these things, but that longer-serving colleagues can also upskill themselves. We want to anchor educational innovations when their concrete added value has been demonstrated. For instance, are we sure that (intensively supervised) group work always offers added value? Are we, in general, convinced that the form of work matters so much? Should the teacher be guiding, facilitating or activating? Can AI add value here? We want to give this turnaround time. Because if good intentions eventually result in increasing work pressure, the quality of our education will come under additional pressure.
6. We encourage on-campus education, but from the inclusive classroom principle, we make online education available for certain student groups. On-campus education as a basic principle is important for the mental well-being of students and teachers. Research (both in Groningen and Antwerp) has shown that social interaction enhances students’ processing of learning material. We adjust the vision around the use of lesson recordings and argue that lesson recordings should always be made available for a short time, unless this has too great an impact on attendance in the auditoria. Of course, recordings remain available for longer periods for students who are absent due to illness, for example. At the same time, it is imperative to avoid students staying at home or in their digs en masse because recordings are available. The right balance needs to be found here. The optimal solution will probably depend on the forms of work and the place of the course unit in the curriculum. In the search for a balance, we should also pay attention to creating sufficient added value for the students who are physically present by stimulating a variety of interaction forms. Integrating small exercises into lectures or question-and-answer sessions, for example, can help here. Being present during class should always add value.
7. Every student and teacher must be trained in the basic principles, applications and challenges of (generative) artificial intelligence (AI). AI and, in particular, GenAI and its expected future evolutions have become part and parcel of our society and, consequently, of our university. We need to study how to properly integrate it into our education, how students and teachers evaluate the use of (Gen)AI, what adjustments in education are needed and how to measure the impact of GenAI. Such courses, modules or bootcamps in AI literacy – which can be organised with lecturers and students together – can be developed centrally or (inter)faculty-wide. In time, such courses could also be delivered by lecturers in collaboration with students themselves, and possibly embedded in regular curricula. Today, KU Leuven Learning Lab support for AI literacy development is understandably very limited. We urgently need to see how we can scale up this offering, to avoid faculties feeling compelled to have to develop it themselves. In faculty training, we can add an “AI literacy” track, and these faculty can also integrate this training into their teaching portfolio as a function of their promotion. For students, we can integrate a learning pathway AI into certain basic subjects, focusing on both content knowledge and skills.
8. International experience should be an essential part of our education. We continue to attach great importance to language acquisition and exchange through the Erasmus+ programme, among others, and expand, preferably through our existing networks, cooperation projects with other universities, where it is useful for our students and teachers. Attention to diversity, sustainability and carrying capacity is central to this. For instance, new commitments for joint courses within the Una Europa alliance can only be made when there is an agreement with the faculties involved and when the necessary space and resources are available. At the same time, it is precisely in the current geopolitical context that we consider it very important to encourage international experiences. Internationalisation not only forms global citizens but also helps to relieve pressure on local internships. We are committed to internationalisation at home by addressing intercultural themes in our curricula.
9. In our Master’s programmes, we support faculties to make maximum use of the space available by decree for foreign-language programmes. This will require collective collegial efforts from the VLIR. It also calls for a rector to make the necessary efforts at the political forum and in consultations with the Flemish government.

Our research pillar: groundbreaking, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary

Research at KU Leuven is world class. We are world authorities in various fields, and there is an above-average flow of research results into practical applications (with accompanying valorisation) by European standards.  We have repeatedly been recognised as the most innovative university outside the United States, UZ Leuven ranks 40th in the world ranking of hospitals (as compiled by the US magazine Newsweek and the data platform Statista) and KU Leuven ranks 43rd in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and 42nd in the Clarivate ranking that maps which universities contribute the most to the patents of the Top 100 Global Innovators.

To consolidate and, if possible, further improve this position, a well-considered approach is needed. This international standing is a very important part of our social capital: it makes us an interesting partner for companies; international students want to study at KU Leuven; and foreign colleagues often prefer a position at our university. In short, it makes it fascinating and satisfying to be part of KU Leuven. So keeping our research reputation high is of paramount importance.

1. We must dare to bet more strongly on blue sky, high-risk/high-gain research if we want to remain competitive in and outside Europe. This means      giving space to basic fundamental research, funded through Special Research Fund (BOF) resources, so that researchers can continue to experiment freely in potentially ground-breaking research. This basic research is essential as an inflow of an innovation pipeline, starting from basic research, through strategic and applied research to valorisation. This was among the suggestions that emerged from the Institutional Review Research in 2024. Within the Human Sciences group, a pioneer award has already existed for many years for researchers with innovative ideas that open up a new research path. Such incentives could be implemented more widely.
2. We operate in a society that increasingly values visible impact and innovation from scientific research. Innovation and impact go far beyond patents, spin-offs and licences. They take many forms and are fed from all disciplines. Scientific research can provide social relevance in so many ways, for example by fuelling public debate, in the form of ethical perspectives on moral dilemmas or through policy advice on public health, social security, art and culture, sustainability and sustainable consumer behaviour or worker protection. It can lead to solutions that ensure that specific target groups are better reached. We want to give socially relevant research a full role in innovation policy and fully recognise it in the accompanying evaluation criteria. From this exemplary role, we must advocate that this is also implemented in Flemish, Belgian and European funding channels. Researchers or research groups that can demonstrate high-quality research with the greatest demonstrable social impact or relevance for the public debate are recognised within the human sciences group with an annual Society Prize. Such initiatives give recognition and motivation to our researchers. We are driving up support to researchers around science communication, exploring in consultation with the Press and Policy Communication Department and the Marketing and Communication Department how they can gain more visibility and weigh in more on the social debate.
3. We enter into debate with Flemish and European policymakers on how research funds can be made available to researchers in a feasible way, and on how best to use these funds (supporting larger projects or several small projects, generating higher success rates, reducing the administrative burden). Certainly the success rates for European funding such as European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) remain low, and this, together with the high administrative burden, discourages many researchers from participating in these. We should also send the message that the chances of success when applying for an ERC Grant at KU Leuven, for example, are significantly higher than at many other institutions, mainly because of the quality of our researchers and the excellent guidance our university offers.
4. We simplify the offer and procedures for evaluating internal funds, as recommended by the Institutional Review Research in 2024. Initiatives such as core funding introduced at other universities should be closely monitored and quantified in terms of their cost-effectiveness before being introduced at KU Leuven. Start-up funding for new ZAP should definitely be maintained.
5. We should continue to strategically focus on internal support for applications for funding. In addition to disciplinary excellence, we promote interdisciplinarity and team science to bring together expertise across departments, faculties and groups, as happens in our KU Leuven Institutes. We do this not only to increase the quality of our research, but also to make research more accessible and socially relevant. Our research vision should focus less on personal (over)achievements and a me me and I vision, but more on collaboration and constructive substantive scientific dialogue. At the same time, individual efforts and qualities cannot matter. Scientists function in an ecosystem in which both large, interdisciplinary teams and smaller groups should have a place. It would be a pity if eminent researchers missed opportunities because potential collaborations across departmental and faculty boundaries were not sufficiently explored.
6. Investments should be made to better support scientific infrastructure and our core facilities. Where overlapping expertise exists with other core facilities (such as the VIB core facilities), integration and a common model should be worked out. After all, core facilities in general are an important asset for KU Leuven. They bundle state-of-the-art research infrastructure, databases and archives and provide specific expertise to researchers. Core facilities recognised by KU Leuven receive limited incubation funding but often struggle to become self-sustaining in the longer term. We want to upgrade the support for our core facilities, similar to what happens in our neighbouring countries.
7. In terms of digital innovations, KU Leuven should focus even more on research into the ethical, useful, sustainable and safe use of AI. Several research groups within KU Leuven, such as the Leuven AI Institute, and VIB.AI, are particularly well placed to effectively implement an acceleration of the use of AI in research but also in education. We are convinced that a research-based implementation of AI can achieve efficiency gains and, in doing so, potentially reduce some of the workload and administrative burden. We need to gain insight into which AI tools are really useful and helpful. Having first versions of meeting reports generated automatically is one example. For its staff, KU Leuven has an agreement with Microsoft for the secure use of Co-Pilot, where staff members can use this tool for free and data is not shared with the general public. This solution can already be used for simple use cases. But open source models or using our own infrastructure can also be considered. All this with the aim of offering long-term solutions for everyone, including our students. We remain actively committed to the Flemish Supercomputer Infrastructure within Tier-1 and Tier-2. The new Tier-1 will offer a significant increase in GPU cores to support AI model training. Our excellent team at KU Leuven ICTS, which manages the Tier-2 infrastructure, will receive continued support to complement Tier-1 with customised services for our researchers and teaching teams, and to facilitate the integration of supercomputing with active data management within our ManGO platform.

Our service pillar: What do we give back to society?

KU Leuven has a major social impact, including through the thousands of graduating young people who enter the labour market each year well trained, through excellent healthcare in the university hospitals, through socially valuable publications and debates and through the many public activities on the various campuses. With more than 150 spin-offs, accounting for almost 7,000 direct jobs, and collaborations in the science parks and incubators, the university delivers significant economic added value to society. Venture capital initiatives, business angles and other investors in the Leuven biotope such as KU Leuven Kick, Startit@KBC, Capricorn Digital Growth Fund, Gemma Frisius Fund and imec.istart provide space for young entrepreneurship and innovation. Thanks to LRD, DOC, our Industrial Research Fund (IOF) managers and so many others, we are able to deliver this social service.

1. As a university, we have a social mission to bring our knowledge and insights closer to citizens. We will therefore explore with the city of Leuven whether initiatives such as the 600-second lectures that were very successful during the Leuven Inside weekend could be repeated with some regularity, inspired by initiatives such as the University of Flanders. Also science cafés where our professors in Leuven or on the campuses engage in discussions with citizens and Citizen Science Projects such as the Health Pass in which more than 1,000 individuals participated during the opening weekend of 600 years of KU Leuven, are great examples of how we can bring the university closer to the city and region of Leuven and its citizens. An example where innovation coming from our university and citizens meet is the Vesalius Experience Centre, which will be dedicated to scientific research, care and society. We encourage researchers with expertise to be present in the media and social debate in order to share our knowledge with a wide audience.
2. New technologies like (Gen)AI can be used even more to create impact in social debate. This can be done in many ways. For instance, policy-relevant research and expertise of our employees should translate into societal goals (e.g. the elaboration of climate policy suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC). Moreover, we need to implement AI developments, AI-driven algorithms and prediction models in the day-to-day operational activities of the university and hospital in an efficient and rule-free manner.      
3. We encourage the optimal use of the 40 IOF valorisation managers that the KU Leuven Association currently has. In tandem with KU Leuven R&D, the research consortia that form their home base, but also the entire university community, their valorisation efforts contribute to making our university one of the most innovative in Europe. Within the budgetary constraints of the IOF channel, we strive to ensure that their valuable work benefits a wider group of researchers and the university. IOF managers may well be active not only within the specific valorisation programme to which they are appointed, but also partly outside it.
4. A university has the task of being an intellectual beacon in society. We often study topics that are sometimes socially very sensitive: this can range from international conflicts (such as Gaza, Ethiopia or eastern Congo) to the application of new technology in medicine (mRNA) or agriculture (GMOs) to aspects of gender policy. Scientists cannot be content with just research: they also have a duty, even when dealing with difficult, controversial topics, to actively share that knowledge with society. More than that, they also have a duty as gatekeepers: they must help ensure that the social debate is conducted correctly and that factual truths are not omitted or distorted. Not every individual researcher at KU Leuven has to participate in the social debate, but as an institution we have to make sure that our voice is heard in all areas. We therefore want to encourage and support everyone more strongly in this.