Universities of applied sciences to 2035: a forecast is not a plan
Federal Statistical Office scenarios to 2035 aid planning. They show possible trajectories – not a predetermined future.
Universities of applied sciences looking ahead to 2035 face a task that cannot be reduced to a single curve. The Federal Statistical Office publishes scenarios for the development of student numbers. Such projections matter to cantons and higher education institutions – but they are not a commitment to future study places and not a decision on new buildings.
Universities of applied sciences train students in fields including computer science, engineering, health, business and social work. Their development therefore also touches on the question of how Switzerland trains skilled workers. That is precisely why it is worth looking closely at what a projection can do – and what it cannot.
What a scenario actually says
The Federal Statistical Office works with a reference scenario plus variants with higher and lower values. The basis is observed educational pathways and demographic assumptions. The calculation translates these assumptions into possible developments. It does not, however, replace admission decisions or the investment decisions of universities and cantons.
Several variables remain fluid: How many young people obtain a suitable upper-secondary level II qualification? How many then transfer to a university of applied sciences? Which subject do they choose? And how long do they stay enrolled? Even a change in one of these transitions can shift the number of students.
That is why the spread between the variants is more than a technical footnote. It makes visible where uncertainty lies. For the public, not only the middle line matters but also the assumptions it depends on. A projection becomes more robust when it is regularly checked against new enrolment and population data.
Skills shortages cannot be read off directly
It would be too simple to read rising student numbers as a direct answer to skills shortages. First, students reach the labour market with a time lag. Second, a total figure says little about which fields the degrees are awarded in. Third, companies' staffing needs do not depend on the number of diplomas alone. Productivity, working conditions, further training and immigration also play a role.
The scenarios are nonetheless useful. They allow capacities to be examined across several cohorts. With practical placements, teaching staff and infrastructure, bottlenecks often emerge earlier than they become visible in an overall student count. For programmes with a strong practical component, it is therefore particularly important to monitor not only demand but also the training places available.
Planning needs more than one signal
FSO projections should sit alongside current application and enrolment figures, not replace them. Changes in occupational fields and in upper-secondary level II educational pathways are just as relevant. A figure for 2035 is not a target that policymakers must meet. It is a reference point to be reviewed when new data arrives. That also means keeping regional differences in mind: a Switzerland-wide trajectory can look different in a single programme or at a single location. Planning therefore means comparing variants and taking decisions step by step so that they remain correctable if demand changes. That keeps planning able to act without prematurely reading short-term changes as a lasting trend.
The appeal of individual fields of study can change quickly. Digitalisation, energy policy and population ageing can increase demand for certain qualifications. At the same time, a larger cohort cannot close every gap: in occupations with scarce practical placements or long further-training paths, additional solutions are needed. For universities of applied sciences to 2035, that means: it is not only the total number that counts, but also whether training grows where the labour market and society need it most.
The open question behind the curve
The Federal Statistical Office's presentation is above all a tool for a sober debate. It shows that the education landscape must be planned for the long term without feigning a future that has already been decided. What will be decisive is whether policymakers and higher education institutions respond in time to changing disciplines and transitions – and not only once a projection has turned into a bottleneck.
