Executive Summary

Human longevity and lifelong learning have long been treated as parallel conversations. At the Century Summit VI, convened by the Longevity Project in collaboration with the Stanford Center on Longevity, more than 200 leaders from higher education, government, business and civil society gathered on February 17 and18 at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, along with 1,900 attendees online, to argue that they must now become one conversation.

In little more than a century, roughly 30 years have been added to average life expectancy. Yet the institutions that structure education, work and retirement remain largely organized around a 20th-century life course: education in youth, work in midlife, retirement in older age. This model no longer fits reality. Longer lives will likely mean longer work spans and the need to save more. Demographic shifts are creating labor shortages even as age discrimination persists. Educational debt is constraining mobility. Caregiving responsibilities now stretch across multiple generations. And AI is accelerating skill obsolescence and reshaping how we learn — as well as what it means to be human in the workplace. 

The focus of Century Summit VI was to rethink how we develop and support talent across extended careers in an era of longer lives. Speakers and participants explored these key questions: 

• How do we ensure that opportunity is not limited by age?
• How can education and training adapt to careers that span decades?
• What role will employers, governments, and communities play in shaping systems that are both equitable and sustainable?
• How can we design a society that prizes purpose, productivity, and connection across the entire lifespan?

Longevity Requires a New Map of Life

Laura L. Carstensen, founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, described the “New Map of Life” as a response to the structural mismatch between extended longevity and outdated institutional design. Education remains heavily front-loaded into the first two decades. Work is compressed into an intense midlife period. Retirement is treated as withdrawal rather than transition. But longer lives create both the necessity and opportunity to interweave learning, earning, caregiving, and reinvention across decades.

Midlife today is often characterized by what some participants called “peak compression” — individuals simultaneously managing career demands, raising children, and supporting aging parents. At the same time, many older adults retain the cognitive capacity and desire to continue contributing meaningfully. Rather than concentrating productivity into a narrow band of years, the New Map of Life envisions cycles of education and work distributed across adulthood. The constraint is not human capacity; it is institutional inertia.

“We added 30 years to life — without redesigning how life works.”
— Laura L. Carstensen, Director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, and Fairleigh S. Dickinson Jr., Professor in Public Policy and Professor of Psychology

Redesigning the life course requires shifts in higher-education finance, employer benefits, retirement policy, and credentialing systems. Without such change, individuals are forced to adapt to systems built for shorter lives.

Age Inclusion Is an Economic Imperative

Several speakers addressed the persistent gap between evidence and practice when it comes to older workers. Research discussed at the Summit shows that older employees often demonstrate lower absenteeism, strong institutional knowledge, and performance on par with or better than younger peers. Yet age discrimination remains widespread in hiring and promotion.

Peter Cappelli, professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, referenced an AARP study that found a majority of retirement-age adults would prefer to continue working in some capacity, but only a fraction successfully secure roles that match their skills. At the same time, employers across sectors report labor shortages and struggle to retain experienced talent.

Participants challenged the framing of generational conflict. Data presented during workforce sessions suggested that tenure and role design often explain workplace dynamics more accurately than birth cohort. Mixed-age teams, speakers emphasized, tend to outperform homogeneous ones because they combine institutional knowledge, emotional intelligence, ethical judgement, and technical agility. 

“Mixed-aged teams tend to be more competitive, but this is a message that often gets lost.”
— Lina Walker, Senior Vice President of Global Thought Leadership, AARP

Leaders from multiple sectors described early efforts to counter age bias through transparent salary bands, flexible scheduling, phased retirement options, and intergenerational mentoring programs. But such practices are not yet widespread.

In aging societies, the failure to leverage experienced workers is not merely unfair — it is economically inefficient. Age inclusion is increasingly a productivity strategy.

AI Will Reshape Learning — but Human Connection Remains Vital

The topic of artificial intelligence surfaced repeatedly throughout the Summit, both as a transformative tool and a source of concern. Workforce experts noted that, despite headlines, there is limited empirical evidence so far of widespread AI-driven job elimination. Instead, the more immediate effect has been rapid skill recalibration and the need for continuous reskilling across ages and professions.

AI’s greatest promise may lie in learning itself. Tracy Layney, a longtime HR expert now with the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, was among several speakers who described AI-enabled systems capable of delivering personalized feedback, adaptive practice, and scalable coaching at low cost — tools that could expand access to education for adult learners balancing work and caregiving. AI could do this quicker and cheaper than individual coaches, argued Layney, and become part of how we learn at work.

At the same time, Allison Pugh, professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, cautioned that learning is not merely cognitive transmission. She introduced the concept of “connective labor” — the human work of presence, empathy, mentoring, and relational exchange that underpins dignity and deep growth.

“Teachers and educators know that friction is key to learning. You need some tension between your current self and your aspirational self. Learning comes from resolving this tension.”
— Allison Pugh, Professor of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, author of The Last Human Job: Seeing Each Other in an Age of Automation

Pugh and others warned that AI systems optimized for frictionless interaction risk eroding the discomfort and difference that drive learning and democratic engagement. If technologies replace rather than augment connective labor, the long-term consequences may extend beyond efficiency to civic life itself.

Participants warned about the need to develop guardrails; if technology displaces essential human-to-human engagement, leaders should pause and evaluate trade-offs. The Summit’s consensus was not anti-technology. It was pro-intentionality. AI can democratize access to coaching and feedback — but only if governance keeps human connection central.

Early (and Adult) Investments Yield Lifelong Returns

What would it mean to build a learning society organized around people and potential across the entire life course — not just around schools and early adulthood?

Longitudinal findings presented by education and sociology researchers underscore the power of early investment in people. Mitchell L. Stevens, professor of education at Stanford University, and Chandra Muller, professor of sociology at University of Texas, Austin, discussed the impact of EdSHARe, a landmark interdisciplinary research project and data repository that investigated how education and early-life factors impact long-term health and cognitive outcomes.

Data from the multi-decade tracking of students revealed, among many findings, that those who completed advanced STEM coursework in high school in the 1980s experienced higher lifetime earnings and greater adaptability — even when they did not complete college degrees. They noted that some of this cohort also went back to school and advanced education at incredibly high rates, with over 40 percent who did attend college getting another degree. 

Early academic rigor appeared to influence not only career outcomes but long-term health and cognitive resilience. These findings reinforce a critical point emphasized by multiple speakers: Longevity policy begins in childhood, and early health and education investments compound across a longer adulthood. As life expectancy increases, so too does the return horizon on early intervention.

“Longevity is not about old people. It’s about investing in people over the entire arc of the life course and recognizing the enduring benefits of those investments.”
— Mitchell L. Stevens, Professor, Stanford Graduate School of Education, and Co-Director of Stanford Center on Longevity

Participants also stressed that learning does not end with school or college and must become more accessible. Ken Stern, founder and chair of the Longevity Project, underscored that learning societies are competitive societies because they create more opportunity and socioeconomic mobility. The average U.S. college student is now 26.4 years old. Chelsea Miller, associate director of the Aspen Institute’s UpSkill America program, noted that nontraditional students are the new normal, yet most American workers are not in a financial position to seek new credentials and job skills. Jodi Anderson Jr., founder of Rézme, a fair-chance-hiring compliance startup, warned that if the United States is going to remain competitive globally, employers need more inclusive hiring policies and must stop automatically excluding applicants who are older, have been incarcerated, or lack college degrees.

The Summit highlighted several educational efforts working in that vein, including Georgia Tech’s $7,000 computer science degree (online but with no transcript difference from the residential program) and its New College of Lifetime Learning; and Stanford Online, the university’s platform of free online courses and degrees, which has served 22.4 million learners worldwide.

A Learning Society Requires Systemic Redesign

The Summit closed with a recognition that incremental reform will not suffice. Higher education leaders — referencing the U.S.’s $1.8 trillion student loan debt — acknowledged rising skepticism about cost and value, alongside growing demand from adult learners seeking flexible reentry points. Employer representatives described the tension between demanding “job-ready” graduates and underinvesting in internal training and intergenerational learning opportunities. State officials, such as Maryland governor Wes Moore and Stewart Knox, secretary of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, highlighted efforts to redesign workforce systems around earn-and-learn models and regional partnerships. 

The common thread was fragmentation. Education, workforce policy, caregiving support, and retirement planning operate in silos, even though individuals experience them simultaneously. A true learning society, participants argued, would reorganize around learners rather than legacy institutions. It would normalize midlife reskilling. It would recognize informal learning and workplace learning. It would integrate caregiving realities into career design. It would align incentives across sectors. 

This work is often slow. Sarah Chapman, chief marketing officer of Manulife Financial Corporation, recounted that it took six years to launch the company’s $350 million longevity research and partnership program because it involved many stakeholders.

“If we truly want a learning society, we have to build it on purpose. It’s going to be a multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder problem-solving environment.”
— Martha Deevy, Associate Director and Senior Research Scholar, Stanford Center on Longevity

The redesign required is structural. It touches finance, governance, culture, and metrics. It also requires coordination across public and private actors — something several speakers described as both difficult and urgent.

Conclusion

Century Summit VI explored a moment of institutional and technological transformation. Longevity and artificial intelligence are reshaping the foundations of work and learning simultaneously. Old structures are straining. New ones are emerging unevenly.

“Longevity isn’t just a demographic shift. It’s a narrative battle over who matters, who belongs, and who gets to contribute. The stories we tell about longevity decide who is seen, who is sidelined and whose experience is treated as an asset rather than a liability. Those narratives, often informed by unconscious ageism, shape hiring, firing, investment, and opportunity long before any policy does.”
— Annie Coleman, Stanford Center on Longevity Ambassador

The redesign required is structural. It touches finance, governance, culture, and metrics. It also requires coordination across public and private actors — something several speakers described as both difficult and urgent.

The educational model built around formal schooling and credentials no longer aligns with the realities of longer lives, evolving careers, and rapid technological change. A learning society is needed, one that recognizes that learning happens everywhere: at home, at work, at play and at worship, as well as at school. Honoring and celebrating that learning as a vital component of shared prosperity across longer lives will get us a long way toward a society that all of us can look forward to building in the next decade.

Insights From the Century Summit VI Table Talks

The Century Summit offered three facilitated discussions, or table talks, led by Stanford Center on Longevity Ambassadors Simon Chan and Annie Coleman, to translate the conference’s ideas into peer dialogue and reflection. Participants aligned around a core premise: Longer lives are a structural reality, yet our work and learning systems remain designed for shorter, linear life courses. Summit participants discussed three core questions:

• WHY must systems change now?
• WHAT is at risk — or possible?
• HOW can leaders move forward together?

WHY Change Is Urgent

• Outdated architecture: Education is front-loaded, careers assumed linear, retirement short. This model no longer fits 60- to 70-year adult lifespans.
• Economic pressure: Financial insecurity, pension strain, healthcare costs, and unequal access to reskilling are pushing people to work longer without support.
• AI shift: As technology advances, the premium on human judgment, ethical reasoning, and contextual intelligence increases — elevating the value of experience across longer careers.
• Wasted experience: Older workers are underutilized; midlife reinvention pathways are weak.
• Compounding strain: Demographic shifts, mental health challenges, and civic fragmentation heighten urgency.

WHAT Is at Stake

Risks of Inaction

• Widening inequality across income, health, and skills.
• Institutional irrelevance if colleges and employers serve only early life stages.
• Social and civic instability tied to prolonged insecurity.
• Lost decades of human capital.

Benefits of Redesign

• Stronger multigenerational collaboration.
• Better workforce alignment and productivity.
• Flexible, stackable lifelong learning models.
• More resilient, trusted institutions.
• Greater well-being and participation across the life course.

HOW to Move Forward

• Co-design learning pathways linking employers and educators.
• Build midlife transition infrastructure (navigators, credentials, fellowships, retraining).
• Launch cross-sector pilots to test new models quickly.
• Break down silos across education, business, government, philanthropy and community groups.
• Reframe longevity as an economic and social strategy—not an “aging issue.”

Cross-Cutting Themes

• Longevity is a structural systems shift, not a niche issue.
• The architecture of adulthood must evolve beyond fixed stages.
• Equity is central, as longer lives can widen disparities without redesign.
• Cultural mindset shifts must accompany structural change.
• Sustainable progress requires cross-sector coordination.

Call for Longevity Innovation Case Studies 

The Stanford Center on Longevity is advancing a global movement to redesign institutions, systems and expectations for lives that increasingly extend beyond 100 years. Century Summit participants are invited to share real-world examples of longevity-ready innovation that have moved beyond concept and are being piloted, scaled or institutionalized with organizational and leadership support. Areas of interest include:

• Consumer products and services for longer, healthier lives.
• Workforce and talent strategies supporting multigenerational careers.
• New approaches to higher education, lifelong learning and reskilling.
• Business model innovation in financial services, health, housing or care.
• Public-sector initiatives advancing age-inclusive design.
• Cross-sector collaborations addressing systemic longevity challenges.

Selected contributors will gain visibility through the Stanford Center on Longevity platform, position their organization as a leader shaping the future of longevity, and contribute practical insights to a growing international field of practice.

A select number of submissions will be chosen for editorial development by SCL and may be featured in SCL Magazine, on the SCL website or across related storytelling and research initiatives. Selected case studies will be shared with leaders across science, business, finance, public policy, education, philanthropy and media.

If your work helps to redefine how people live, work and learn across longer lives, we invite you to share your story.