How ASU London designs interdisciplinary, industry-connected education

In this episode, Todd Davey, A/Prof. of Entrepreneurship at IMT-BS and Associate Partner at UIIN, speaks with Judy Raper, former CEO and Dean of ASU London, about what it really takes to design interdisciplinary, industry-connected education from the ground up. Drawing on her experience launching a brand-new university model, Judy reflects on how project-based learning, curiosity-driven education, and real-world challenges can reshape how engineers, and universities, are formed.

From banning traditional lectures and embracing “just-in-time” learning, to navigating accreditation constraints, this conversation offers honest insights for anyone questioning whether today’s university models are fit for the future.

You can read a summary below, and listen to the full interview in our podcast:

Also available on:

Summary

Designing an engineering school around global challenges

ASU London emerged from a collaboration between Arizona State University, University of New South Wales, and King’s College London. The ambition was to create an engineering school that produced globally focused and socially aware engineers and attracted a more diverse student body by widening what engineering could be.

The idea was to take “the blinkers off the engineer”: keep technical rigour while embedding context, such as social, environmental, and practical, into the core of the programme. The result was a curriculum that treated industry-linked projects as the main engine of learning, not an add-on once real content had been delivered.

The vision was to create a new engineering school that created globally focused and socially aware engineers.

Putting projects at the centre, not at the end

A defining move was to insist that projects weren’t just a place to practise generic skills, they had to carry the learning outcomes themselves. Instead of learning thermodynamics in isolation and then completing a project afterwards, students learned engineering concepts through taking systems apart, rebuilding them, and redesigning components to improve performance.

Each year, the programme anchored learning in a global challenge such as zero carbon or the “right to repair”. One cohort dismantled an energy recovery unit in a sustainable building and rebuilt it; another reverse-engineered robotic vacuum cleaners and then designed versions that could be repaired. This approach made technical learning tangible and gave students a reason to care about the theory they were reaching for.

“Just in time” learning and the end of default lectures

Judy draws a sharp contrast between “just in case” education and “just in time” learning. The old model of long sequences of lectures delivered because students might need the content someday was intentionally disrupted. Instead, students accessed learning materials when a project demanded them, and returned to those materials as needed.

Instead of having a whole semester of thermodynamics […] students can access the modules whenever they want, but they access them at when they needed it.

Teaching still happened through masterclasses and tutorials, but the goal was to stop the curriculum defaulting to weekly lecture delivery and to keep learning tied to purpose, curiosity, and application.

Makerspaces, culture, and student ownership

Makerspaces were essential infrastructure for curiosity-based learning. If students are expected to build, test, and iterate, they need space, tools, and access that extends beyond timetabled sessions. Judy also points out that these models thrive with small cohorts and strong access.

Student ownership was shaped through a mix of recruitment, assessment, and culture. Prospective students were interviewed to gauge fit for a self-directed environment. Then, peer expectations and the community feel reinforced responsibility in day-to-day learning. A small first cohort included many students who “would not have gone to university if didn’t exist,” with high female participation and learners who had previously struggled with confidence.

Industry mentors, real constraints, and the fight against reversion

Industry involvement was built through mentoring and sustained engagement. Companies donated equipment, regularly met student teams, and contributed perspectives while also gaining access to talent and to each other. Summer schools served as “sandpits” to prototype projects before they entered the formal curriculum.

The hardest constraints were structural. Degree-awarding requirements and accreditation pushed the programme into familiar formats. On top of that, culture resisted change even among staff hired because they believed in project-based learning. Judy’s response is clear: leadership has to keep pulling the institution back to its vision, especially when uncertainty triggers a return to old habits.

Be bold and don’t give in to people wanting to revert back to old ways.

Judy Raper’s message is that meaningful education reform is about redesigning learning so that purpose, making, and context drive what students do every week. The universities that thrive in the years ahead will be the ones willing to pilot boldly, invest in champions, and hold the line on vision when the system pressures them to revert.

Ready for more?

If Judy’s bold rethinking of engineering education resonated with you, there’s more to explore. Her reflections on project-based learning, interdisciplinary design, and building curiosity-driven universities are featured in the Future of Universities Thoughtbook | Entrepreneurial Edition.

In the book, Judy joins 35+ other global experts in sharing their perspectives on how universities must evolve to foster entrepreneurial thinking, innovation, and real-world impact. If you’re curious about where higher education is heading and how bold experimentation can shape that future, we invite you to read her full contribution and discover the wider collection.

Stay tuned for the next episode on this series and don’t forget to follow us on your preferred podcast platform!