The fear that education is in danger of becoming a moral guide is understandable, but it is based on a misunderstanding. The aim of higher education is not to prescribe to students how they should feel or who they should be. The focus on inner development is about something else: making visible what has long been part of good learning. Students not only acquire knowledge, but also learn to relate to situations that are complex, uncertain or morally charged.

In doing so, we are not modelling students to fit a desired image of humanity, but recognising what the work of a professional requires. Sooner or later, engineers, lawyers, economists, biologists, doctors and educators will find themselves in situations where knowledge alone is not enough; they must be able to weigh up options, collaborate, assess risks, consider different perspectives and understand the consequences of their actions. This requires more than subject-specific expertise; it is about the combination of expertise, judgement, a moral compass and responsible action.

Higher education places a strong focus on the cognitive side of learning. Students are often assessed on exams and adapt their learning behaviour accordingly. The bigger picture then quickly disappears from view. Meaningful learning requires students to understand why they are learning something: to make connections, place their knowledge in a broader context and see what opportunities for action that knowledge offers in practice. Inner development supports this process. Not as an end in itself, but as a way of connecting learning with professional and responsible behaviour.

Students develop these professional qualities primarily through doing: by experiencing tension, practising, reflecting and receiving feedback. The Inner Development Goals (IDGs) help to make this process explicit by providing language for reflection on aspects such as courage, cooperation and dealing with uncertainty. Take “courage”, for example: it takes practice to speak out when those around you think differently. This is not about shaping an ideal image of humanity, but an important learning experience that is part of fields where public responsibility, polarisation or moral dilemmas play a role. Each programme and professional practice requires its own emphasis and space for practice: what courage or reflection means looks different in a hospital, courtroom or laboratory.

Some of the criticism is therefore justified: implementation is sometimes too rapid, too top-down or too uniform, without regard for the profession, the context or the students who are at the centre of it all. Educational innovation only works when teachers feel a sense of ownership and when students are co-creators. Inner development should not be placed on top of the content, but should be naturally interwoven with the subject itself. That is the only way to make learning meaningful: not as an add-on, but as an integral part of learning.

That is why there is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between “knowledge” and “inner development”. In practice, students always develop knowledge, skills and attitudes in conjunction with each other. What you learn gains meaning through what you do with it, which is precisely why good education can never consist solely of the transfer of facts.

At a time when issues surrounding sustainability, justice and technology are becoming increasingly complex, we cannot afford to reduce education to the acquisition of knowledge. Students deserve knowledge, craftsmanship and the ability to act with insight, integrity and responsibility. Not to mould them into someone else, but so that they can use their expertise to make a truly meaningful contribution to a world that sorely needs it.