AI is here. How is higher ed dealing?
Ideas and themes from last week’s ASU+GSV Summit in San Diego are still swirling in my head, and I’ll be reporting out many of those in the months to come. No surprise, artificial intelligence, and especially the power of generative AI, was this year’s Topic A at the big confab. That’s not always an indicator of lasting relevance to higher ed (remember blockchain? MOOCs?), but AI is quite a different animal. It’s powerful and ubiquitous and likely life-changing for the world’s economy — and education.
I feel hard-pressed to summarize the sentiment of 7,000-plus at ASU+GSV, or the thousands more who attended its related “AIR Show” (AI Revolution in Education), but Glenda Morgan, a thoughtful writer for the On EdTech blog did, offering in a post that at least among this San Diego crowd, folks “seem to be getting over that annoying moral-panic phase of AI where everything seemed driven and dominated by a fear of cheating and the attempts to detect it.”
Now, Morgan writes, colleges, vendors, and investors are exploring how AI might fit into education, but haven’t figured it out yet. “There are attempts at innovation and new products and services, but a lot of it feels half-hearted, like the providers themselves (whether institutions or vendors) haven’t convinced themselves they know what to do.” Morgan is more hopeful for the next year or two, when more “real-use cases designed to solve problems” might emerge and we can begin to test whether they work.
I’m not sure the rest of higher ed actually is past that “moral panic” phase. Nonetheless, during ASU+GSV I did appreciate hearing about some of the ways colleges are preparing their faculty members — and students — for an AI-infused future. Two examples:
- Arizona State University created a “Teaching and Learning With Generative AI” online course for its faculty members, to give them basic and advanced know-how about the technology and, if they chose, to help them use it in their courses. Some 1,500 took the classes. The university also made a version of the self-paced course for other institutions. (ASU is offering readers of The Edge a 90-percent discount on the course through September 1; use the code ChronicleASU24 at check out.) While ASU has forged a partnership with the company that created ChatGPT, the course covers a variety of other AI tools too. For students, the university also plans to have at least one course in AI offered by each of its colleges by the fall, Nancy Gonzales, the provost, said during our session at ASU+GSV, so that they too have opportunities to become AI-literate in their fields of study.
- The University of Texas at San Antonio, perhaps assuming that students are already more comfortable than its faculty with the technology, is pairing professors with grad students and upper-division students in its “pedagogical partners” program. The idea is for instructors to gain a firsthand understanding of how students are already using and thinking about generative-AI tools.
While the Texas program doesn’t have the reach of ASU’s offering — the UTSA’s small stipends will be offered to only about 75 pairs of faculty members and students over three semesters starting in fall — it does show that institutions don’t necessarily need big budgets to get going on AI literacy.
And it makes me wonder: What are others doing to help their faculty, administrators, and students better understand AI? Are you at a college (or other organization) that has developed an interesting approach to developing understanding of AI literacy and ethics? Please email me some details. I’ll share some of what I hear in a future newsletter.
Turning “service” into a business and teaching model
The Chronicle’s “Higher Education in 2035” report, with contributions from me and 10 others, examines some of the challenges colleges will face in the years ahead. In the report’s intro essay, one survival strategy I highlight suggests that colleges reimagine themselves as “public-service institutions” that receive revenue for advising local governments, nonprofits, and companies. They could also develop those experiences as learning opportunities for their students.
That compelling idea came to me from Dennis Jones, president emeritus of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, a nonprofit consultancy where he’s worked with states and colleges for more than 50 years. But it turns out, one of the people now trying to bring the concept to life is Jason Lane, the National Association of Higher Education Systems’ new president and a special adviser to the president of the University of Illinois system.
The public-service-university idea is built upon a simple notion, Lane told me when we spoke earlier this month. “Colleges have a lot of resources that they can deploy” for the benefit of their communities. But they haven’t fully capitalized on them, he said. “One of the great untapped resources of higher education is the expertise of our faculty.”
One reason I’m so intrigued by this idea is that I’ve reported extensively on academic-technology transfer, watching the ways big research universities have connected their scientific expertise to corporations and start-ups. Like Jones and Lane, I see potential for other kinds of institutions — regional publics, small privates, and community colleges — to develop a version of those tech-transfer enterprises focused on local needs. Many of those institutions are also the ones that could probably benefit from some new revenue streams. And if students could be part of the projects, gaining relevant experience as part of their academic programs, it would be a win-win all around.
To be sure, many colleges offer such advisory services to local entities now, sometimes through federally funded business-development centers on their campuses. But with some intention, they could expand that model. That’s why Lane — whose new job at NASH also carries the quirky title “chief systemness officer” — is so interested. “If we’re really going to stand up and scale higher ed’s role in this,” he told me, “it needs to be through systems.”
That’s probably true. I also recognize some of the downsides of that approach, but they aren’t necessarily deal breakers. For one, existing consulting firms might resent the colleges’ intrusion. But as Lane noted, “a lot of universities have expertise that is not otherwise available in their communities.” Faculty members who now do their own consulting on the side might also feel as if they’re being bigfooted by their institutions if those organizations got into the arena. But as Lane told me, there are workarounds: “Universities can build a model that continues to benefit the faculty member.”
Perhaps the biggest question, however, is more a philosophical one: Service is one of the three pillars of an academic institution. So I do wonder if higher ed is really ready to try generating income from it? At the same time, given today’s financial realities, can it really afford not to?
What do you think? Should colleges be exploring this model? What are some of the best opportunities? Where are the potential pitfalls? Please get in touch. I’m eager to explore this idea further, informed by your thoughts.
Got a tip you’d like to share or a question you’d like me to answer? Let me know, at goldie@chronicle.com. If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to see past issues, find them here. To receive your own copy, free, register here. If you want to follow me on X, @GoldieStandard is my handle. Or find me on BlueSky Social, which I just joined with the same handle.