What future for translation and interpreting training institutions?

In this post, I aim to explore the future of translation and interpreting education in academia, particularly the trajectory of translation departments and faculties. In short, my prediction is that translation departments and faculties will gradually lose relevance and, ultimately, at least some of them, sadly, disappear. Translation as a discipline will undoubtedly survive, as the need for translation will persist, along with the very much vivid academic interest in studying it. This prediction is, of course, uncertain, as are my recommendations to avoid obsolescence.

To set the context, at the higher education level, translation and interpreting are typically housed within broader university faculties—usually under Arts, Literature, and Philosophy. In some few cases, these departments¹ constitute entire faculties². Beyond universities, professional courses in translation and interpreting are offered by various stakeholders, like professional associations or even companies³. The field of translation and interpreting is also represented by isolated translation-related professorships embedded in broader humanities faculties, not directly in departments and faculties⁴. Translation departments and faculties focus primarily on the education—or more accurately, the training—of translators, interpreters, and, increasingly, hybrid language professionals. Some departments also engage in various form of research, either on the base of individuals or in the context of articulated and funded projects⁵.

The emergence of departments and faculties specialized in the training of translators and interpreters was a response to the post-World War II multilingual and interconnected world, particularly after the 1960s, when globalization demanded the translation and interpretation of vast amounts of information. Universities capitalized on this demand, developing specialized curricula to train professionals for this growing market. It was a win-win situation: advanced translation and interpreting required highly educated professionals, while the humanities found a chance to realize their growing aspiration for greater professionalization. Society and the economy also stood to benefit from the skills of a new generation of professionals who brought the world closer, both linguistically and culturally.

Young girls and boys loved this. Languages have always captivated people. The prospect of learning languages for a rather unknown but respected profession, coupled with an enticing narrative of travel, cultural exchange, and knowledge, contributed to the appeal of these programs. This was certainly a positive vision, marked by the glamour of international organizations where not only politicians, economists, and others had roles, but also civil servants with remarkable language skills, working together to make the world a better place. Hence, interpreting and translation became synonymous with the dynamic, multicultural globalized world, attracting large numbers of students and leading to the multiplication of smaller and bigger departments and schools around the world.

Around the start of the new millennium, likely by 2010, a shift began to emerge. In many countries, student interest in language-related disciplines started to decline—most notably in Europe (in some other countries the interest has always been marginal). This trend has only accelerated in recent years, with departments closing or at least struggling to maintain sustainable number of student⁶. Let’s be clear: many of these departments were already operating with very few students from their inception, a situation often accepted as an inherent challenge in attracting the right candidates for such demanding curricula. The point is that it is just natural that when enrollment dwindles under a certain threshold, this is my basic thesis, it inevitably leads to closures, or sizing down, merging with other departments, etc. And this is what is is happening i.e. it is about to happen now, with all the consequences of the case.

My observation of declining enrollments at the university level is not based on definitive data. Departments and faculties rarely publish statistics or trends⁷—nor does CIUTI, which represents the major translation and interpreting departments⁸. This reluctance is understandable: they have a vested interest in maintaining perceived relevance, and can present what I—with some exaggeration—call the “Great Illusion,” a narrative of importance used to attract prospective students on whom their ideological and practical survival depends. Consequently, my point is drawn from impressions formed in 20 years navigating these institutions and the market. My anticipation of future developments, in turn, relies on basic inferential logic. But I am surely not the only one pointing to this possible scenario (see Pym 2024, although, admittedly, we frame the issue quite differently—likely in a way that is epistemologically irreconcilable).

In my view, this decline in interest can be attributed to two main factors. First, we must acknowledge that, in most cases, what motivated 18-year-old students to enroll in translation faculties was not necessarily the career prospects. Instead, it was the allure associated with the profession. As described before, the world’s imagery surrounding translation and interpreting—rooted in the cosmopolitan lifestyle, travel, and the fascination of international settings—played a significant role in its appeal. However, this once-glamorous narrative has gradually lost its charm. For younger generations, international travel has become routine, at least in the Western world, thanks to cheap flights and 24/7 video and audio connectivity. Speaking English with foreigners has become second nature—an everyday occurrence rather than something awe-inspiring. In other words, the traditional appeal of the field as a door to this lifestyle has diminished significantly.

Second, even for those contemplating a professional career at an early age rather then just the allures, the rise of AI technologies has delivered the scacco matto (checkmate) to this profession’s attractiveness. And who can blame them? Younger generations have grown up with translation tools in their pockets. Whether the quality of these tools is superior (they are not) or inferior to professional work is beside the point. What matters is the prevailing narrative: translation can be automated. This perception has become widespread, and it’s not entirely unfounded.

Recent advancements in spoken language translation have only reinforced this belief. The idea that not only written translation but also the prestigious field of interpreting could be automated is gaining traction. Again, while it’s true that the quality of a highly skilled interpreter cannot (yet) be replicated by machines, this nuance is lost in the broader perception among prospective students. These are debates that interest only the people already in the professions, not so much an average young woman or man.

To avoid misunderstandings: this is not just a matter of perceptions and narratives. The reality is that building a rewarding career as a translator or interpreter is becoming increasingly difficult. This was already true 30 years ago, but today, it seems evident that only the very best—the top tier—might secure such opportunities, perhaps in exclusive international institutions. For most, the path seems far less promising, as indicated by the dropping in translation opportunities and salaries. If this is true now: what about in 5 or 10 years time when AI performances will match, at least in many professional areas, the one of the average professional? And what about all those hybrid professional roles, like post-editors or LangOps specialists that are promoted now as the upskilling of the professionals? Let’s be realistic: while the upskilling may offer a necessary adaptation for older professionals striving to navigate the shrinking opportunities in the field, they hold little to no appeal for younger generations who aspire to build modern, forward-looking careers.

Now, this is the vantage point from which I base my thoughts and recommendations. The outcome of what I believe to be an unstoppable trend—one that will only accelerate in the years ahead—is, as I indicated at the beginning of this article, that large translation faculties and departments will lose relevance, face downsizing, and, in some cases, be merged into larger faculties to avoid becoming too small. Departments may be absorbed into broader academic units, staffing will be reduced, and, once critical thresholds are reached, closures will follow. It would be beneficial for those in charge to recognize this reality and take the necessary actions and precautions accordingly.

Personally, I don’t view this trend as entirely negative—though it is undoubtedly challenging for the institutions and their affected staff. Change is a natural part of life, and it’s inevitable. It is also an opportunity. An opportunity to rethink oneself. While there is a pernicious gap in demand and offer on the market (for example, institutions find it hard to employ super-highly-skilled professionals⁹), the market in general won’t suffer from this shift, as the overall demand for translators and interpreters will decline over time, at least in the segment of the market where, purely from a financial point of view, it does make sense to have a high education degree. The future gap will probably be more about quality, not quantity. For the few ones interested in Translation Studies, the rich body of knowledge surrounding translation and interpreting will not be in danger. As I mentioned earlier, clusters of professional training will persist, and academic research will continue to exist, even outside the framework of current professionalization schools. In other words, the field will evolve, but its intellectual foundation will endure.

My point is that there is no reason to view this trend as the beginning of a doomed era for translation and interpreting. The decline in interest and the move toward irrelevance for many institutions does not imply that all demand, needs, and interest in the field will vanish. If there is need and demand, there is hope. I generally see hard times as the perfect opportunity to reinvent yourself. Now is the time to take the bull by the horns and determine what can be done, from an institutional perspective, to ensure the survival and enhancement of this undeniable service to society and young people. Inaction—or worse, the persistence on the wrong actions—will inevitably lead to obsolescence.

Since the day I began advising both new and established institutions on their reform plans, my recommendations have remained consistent and operate at a high level. So to say, they set the stage for more fine grained decisions:

• Focus on Specialized, Short-Term Programs and Embrace Online Curricula
  For translation and interpreting training, prioritize short programs—no longer than 6 months or one-year courses—over maintaining full undergraduate and graduate tracks, such as the European 3+2 model. These targeted offerings can effectively meet specific industry demands without requiring lengthy commitments. For addressing short-term, niche specializations, consider online or hybrid programs as a compelling option. Provide flexibility while maintaining academic rigor. Big international institutions, such as the EU or the UN, may end up training themselves their high skilled interpreters using this format.

• Move Away from Overspecialization from Long Programs
  If maintaining longer programs is still a necessity, avoid the outdated paradigm of narrow specialization that once defined translation and interpreting curricula at under and postgraduate level (read also “Narrow specialization is not a fit for the future of education“). In fact, consider moving away from translation and interpreting as core disciplines entirely. These are inherently narrow specializations that do not align with the broader, interdisciplinary skills required for the future. Instead, treat translation and interpreting as short-term specializations for students who already possess advanced, general skills (see above).

• Teach Technologies Not Applications and Avoid Chasing Technological Trends
  Overcoming the traditional division between pure humanities and STEMS is the future. Resist the urge to react to every technological trend with short-sighted changes. For example, offering classes on how to prompt GPT for translation or using AI to create glossaries is not true modernization. Young people don’t need universities to teach them such skills—they are often more adept at using these tools than faculty. Teach technology: NLP, ML, history, management, etc. (read also: “Education: Focus on what stays the same, rather than what changes“). And do not ask your staff to do it, hire experts. Excellence is paramount.

• Be Bold and Visionary
  Do not listen to pundits who claim that everything is fine and small changes will save you. True reform requires bold action. Bring in fresh visions, new talents, and innovative ideas. Many departments fall into the trap of attempting change without changing anything meaningful, doing often “cosmetic” changes¹⁰. They reassign the same faculty to teach courses with updated names but unchanged content, leading to what I call the “introductory effect,” where departments stagnate under the guise of reform. Substantial reform is difficult and risky but is the only way to address the root issues and remain relevant.

It should be quite clear that if we continue along the current trajectory of absence of relevant change, we risk drifting into irrelevance—and this could happen sooner than expected. My experience observing universities doing curriculum adaptation has, unfortunately, been largely disappointing (but I have also seen courageous reformes out there!). This isn’t due to a lack of awareness or willingness from individuals who understand the challenges and want to address them, but rather because making meaningful changes is inherently difficult, especially in crusted academic contexts. As a result, institutions often resort to superficial or cosmetic adjustments instead of undertaking true reforms.

Let’s not ever forget that amid these challenges lies opportunities. Beyond boldly reforming existing structures—which is admittedly difficult—there is also the possibility of creating something entirely new. Perhaps a new type of institution is needed—one that anticipates future changes rather than merely reacts to them. This could involve the development of a modern, broad, non-professionalizing curriculum with depth and relevance, complemented by shorter, focused, professionalizing programs.

Ultimately, survival will depend on the willingness to confront these uncomfortable truths and commit to meaningful, forward-thinking transformation. A good beginning would be to support a climate of open and controversial discussions.

Notes

1. An example of a Translation and Interpreting Department inside a faculty (Facultad de Filosofía y Letras) is the one of Alicante. ↩︎
2. An example is the Fachbereich 06 of the University of Mainz, where I teach. ↩︎
3. Not that common, but companies offer also so-called academies, Youpret from Finland is an example. ↩︎
4. As a case in point, think of the acclaimed Translation Scholar Lowrence Venuti, Professor at Temple University. ↩︎
5. As a case in point of a hyper active research center, consider the Center for Translation Studies led by Prof. Sabine Braun. ↩︎
6. There are no official numbers about the development of the number of students, so for example the CIUTI (the association of translation and interpreting training institutions) does not public any numbers for their members. ↩︎
7. There are some sporadic studies analyzing these trends, see for example Hao & Pym 2022 (but submitted 2020, i.e. 5 years ago…) ↩︎
8. I could not find any report on trends of number of enrollments on their webpage. ↩︎
9. The EU institutions, among others, complain about shortage of talents: “It is extremely challenging to find young talents with the right skills, especially for linguistic professions” ↩︎
10. A classic is rebranding the name of the faculty, the last example is the Institute for Translation and Interpreting being renamed in Institute for Multilingual Communication of the Zurich university. ↩︎