An AI-Driven Optimism for Transforming Higher Education (It's Not What You Think)

When considering how artificial intelligence (AI) has "disrupted" higher education, accurately characterizing the current landscape is essential. The number of college students struggling with mental health is at an all-time high.^Footnote1 An overwhelming number of students describe their higher education experience as highly competitive and stressful. They worry about their academic performance, grades, and tuition costs. They generally believe that college is a transactional exchange—a product for a grade—so it is unsurprising that they also feel more pressure to achieve than to learn. It is also not surprising that they believe the high tuition they pay should provide a specific and direct path to an economically successful career. How did we get here?

Since the early 1980s in the United States, an "ethos of privatization and competition turned students into consumers and colleges into businesses."^Footnote2 The public increasingly views college as a private benefit designed to foster the upward mobility of individuals. This narrative has had devastating impacts on higher education, eroding public trust and undermining the societal benefits of an educated public.^Footnote3 According to a recent Gallup poll, "an increasing proportion of U.S. adults say they have little or no confidence in higher education."^Footnote4 Indeed, public support for and confidence in the value of higher education has declined sharply over the last few decades. Decreased public funding for higher education has led to dramatic increases in education costs for learners. Moreover, state divestment and systemic racism are highly correlated with lower college completion rates for students of color.^Footnote5

This gutting of federal and state financial support for higher education has left college students with more than 1.7 trillion dollars of collective student loan debt.^Footnote6 Higher tuition and student debt, fewer resources for public colleges and universities, and an emphasis on marketable skills have intensified pressure on and competition among students. This environment not only impacts students' mental health but also narrows their educational experiences by prioritizing employability over intellectual and personal development. Reimagining higher education funding and structure could alleviate these pressures and create a more supportive, equitable, and enriching academic environment.

One of the outcomes of the current landscape is the tendency to sort students and graduates into categories where some are considered "better than" others. The competitive academic battle to gain admission to institutions across the country begins with an uneven playing field. Students who already have substantial advantages due to their K–12 experiences and family financial situation are much more likely to be admitted to prestigious institutions. These students—most of whom are white and come from wealthy families—are also much more likely to succeed in college and go on to get well-paying jobs. This upward mobility of the upwardly mobile further amplifies existing societal inequities, increasing polarization and political instability in the United States.

To what extent are we considering this context and interrogating the future purpose, role, and design of higher education when discussing AI tools and their implementation? Aside from vague techno-solutionist proclamations of how AI will "improve" things, we, as an academic community, have not addressed the question, "To what end?" Are the current calls for integrating AI in education poised to exacerbate the problems and inequities in the current landscape rather than alleviate them?

Imagining New Possibilities

I would like to suggest a different possibility. I believe AI can play a role in spurring a new imagination that works to truly disrupt the current landscape. What if higher education leaders provided substantial support for campus initiatives that directly and significantly decrease social inequities and more effectively address intractable problems like climate change and political instability? When I speak publicly, I often ask the audience to consider this question: If higher education is not the central locus for driving responsible, inclusive, community-driven social change that improves the lives of all, what is?

The following social media post written by Kate Bowles, associate dean international in the faculty of arts, humanities, and social sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia, really resonates with me: "The thing is, in universities we have all the engineers, computer scientists, artists, linguists, ethicists, economists and historians you could hope for in a time of complex change. We can lead, except we don't."^Footnote7 Why? Bowles posited two possible reasons: "We are ourselves in this crisis and trying to survive so we lack confidence; we have so bewildered ourselves with the busywork of invented routines to assure our own standing (paywalled publication, rankings, promotion and tenure systems) that hubris distracts from purpose."^Footnote8 Her reasons are part of the answer to my question, but I think there's more to it. I think we in higher education—and people generally—are greatly limited by a lack of imagination. Not only do we lack the will to imagine (as Bowles articulates), but we also lack the belief that we are even allowed to imagine something different. Ruha Benjamin writes that oppressive systems—such as racism, sexism, and classism—constrain peoples' imaginations and trap them within a dominant imagination that reinforces the status quo.^Footnote9 Benjamin calls on us to envision alternative possibilities and dream collectively to create a more just and equitable world. How can we transform higher education so that its primary purpose is to do just that?

Many students enter college with the ambition to change the world. Colleges and universities play a crucial role in fostering this ambition by providing platforms for students to engage in meaningful extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and community service projects. And while there are some exceptions, for the most part, this work is "extra" or outside the regular classroom experience. As such, the perceived value of the work for students is diminished and definitely limits their available time to devote to it. Students' motivation to learn and be part of something larger than themselves when they enter college is usually snuffed out before they finish their first year—and certainly by the time many of them have figured out the "game of school" well enough to graduate. Aspirations Over Time—a video that depicts a student interviewed before, during, and near the end of a single semester—illustrates this loss of enthusiasm perfectly.^Footnote10

In the PBS documentary series A Brief History of the Future, futurist Ari Wallach provides numerous inspiring examples of how people are addressing climate change and reducing suffering, hunger, and war around the world.^Footnote11 Examples include creating sustainable fishing and kelp harvesting practices and using technology to improve communication and bring citizens together to address social issues in their communities. Why aren't we drawing a straighter line from what we are doing in our academic institutions to this kind of world-changing work? Although there are many wonderful examples of environmental, community-oriented, and sustainable futures projects in college courses, this is not the primary outcome of the training our colleges and universities offer—despite the rhetoric in college mission statements. Why can't we transform all our courses and programs to enable students to directly and positively change the world? Could AI help us accomplish that goal?

What AI Can't Do—and My Reasons for Optimism

"The most important thing about A.I. may be that it shows us what it can't do, and so reveals who we are and what we have to offer." —David Brooks

It is increasingly apparent that detectors for AI-generated content are generally ineffective. Students can use AI to write papers, complete assignments, and answer test questions without instructors knowing. In fact, an array of AI tools is marketed directly to students, promising to reduce their work and save them time. Some faculty have responded by attempting to ban all devices from classrooms and testing spaces. However, AI writing tools will only get better at evading detection, and more wearable devices that can easily be hidden will be created and marketed to students. Do we really want to focus our energy on this insane arms race to develop technologies that detect cheating and plagiarism? Or should we use this moment to change course and finally stop the madness of grades and transactional education?

Long before generative AI became prominent in higher education, many of us in the teaching and learning space had been calling for the end of grades. In their respective books, Jesse Stommel and Susan Blum provide comprehensive critiques of the traditional grading system, highlighting its detrimental effects on students.^Footnote12 They, like many others, argue that grading not only detracts from the intrinsic joys of learning but also exacerbates stress, stifles creativity, encourages comparison and competition, and reinforces inequities. Educators and institutions risk reducing education to a superficial metric by focusing on grades and overlooking the rich, complex processes that constitute meaningful learning. The emphasis on grades can lead students to view their abilities as static rather than developable. A fixed mindset can hinder resilience and discourage growth-oriented approaches to learning. Stommel and Blum advocate for a shift toward more holistic, process-oriented, and equitable approaches to assessment that better support student development and well-being. Unfortunately, calling upon faculty or higher education systems to do this has not worked.

Here are my reasons for optimism: Since we can no longer grade and assess in traditional ways, can we finally conclude that grades are meaningless? Can we finally get rid of grading and sorting and instead focus on actual learning? Can we seize this powerful, pivotal AI moment—perhaps the most disruptive force to higher education since the internet—and use it to serve the public good? Can we focus on motivating students to learn and care for each other and the other inhabitants of our planet?

What Now?

Perhaps one of the most important points to glean from A Brief History of the Future is that we as humans have the ability to increase our empathy and compassion.^Footnote13 For me, that point is everything. Wallach wonderfully illustrates why humans do not need to be stuck in a "this is just who we are" mindset. I believe empathy and compassion are not just teachable "skills," they are the most important skills people can learn. Not only can we teach motivation, curiosity, collaboration, character, wisdom, integrity, empathy, and compassion, we must. Students will use AI with or without us. If we stop focusing on grading content acquisition, perhaps we can take the time to teach these skills as we guide students in using the web, AI, social media, and digital tools in general. Our primary responsibility can be to teach these skills, which can not only spark students' motivation to learn, but faculty's motivation to teach and administrators' motivation to lead.

If grades are eliminated, students will use AI to learn and create because they are already (or can be) motivated to do so—not because they are forced to engage in a strategic "game of school" that they are trying to win. Classroom time (whether physical or virtual) can be spent focusing on teaching the things AI cannot. Since AI is predictive, teachers can teach students how to be unpredictable. If we support, encourage, and provide students with the necessary guidance and tools, they won't have a motivation to cheat. They will be motivated to develop their minds and skills simply because they want to learn.

Focusing on what AI can't do and using AI for what it does best presents us with new possibilities and a major opportunity to make a substantial impact on the lives of our students and on our war-ravaged, rapidly warming, inequitable, socially deteriorating world. Just supporting students to get jobs that replicate the society we already have is setting us on a path toward global failure.

College students should be provided with the tools, environment, and funding necessary to help them create a better future. One strategy that might help us accomplish this goal is open pedagogy, an approach that emphasizes students as creators and contributors rather than passive consumers. It can serve as a vehicle to empower marginalized students to express their thoughts and advocate for themselves. Students can use AI to co-create and be engaged as partners in learning. They can also co-create AI tools themselves.^Footnote14 Open pedagogy does more than involve students in the creation of open educational resources; its real value lies in the instructor's philosophical approach. By turning attention from resources and products to people and practices, the basic tenets of open pedagogy—emphasizing community and collaboration over the individual; sharing resources, ideas, and power; forming connections with and service to the public; and empowering students to have agency over their learning—can be instrumental in transforming higher education. We can help students cultivate the motivation and curiosity to address the global and societal crises around them. Not only can we teach students to think critically, use AI tools, and vet the information generated by those tools, but we can also help them understand the necessity and power of compassionate, empathetic approaches to problem-solving. This ethos should be at the center of what students create and share.

It is past time for "all the engineers, computer scientists, artists, linguists, ethicists, economists and historians you could hope for" to come together to dream and dramatically reimagine a new future for higher education.^Footnote15

Notes

1. Sarah Wood, "Mental Health on College Campuses: Challenges and Solutions," U.S. News and World Report, June 6, 2024. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.↩
2. John Warner, Sustainable. Resilient. Free: The Future of Public Higher Education (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020). Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.↩
3. Christopher Newfield, The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). Jump back to footnote 3 in the text.↩
4. Jeffrey M. Jones, "U.S. Confidence in Higher Education Now Closely Divided," Gallup Education (website), July 8, 2024. Jump back to footnote 4 in the text.↩
5. Douglas A. Webber, "State Divestment and Tuition at Public Institutions," Economics of Education Review 60 (2017); Sirena M. Covington, "State Divestment in Higher Education and Students of Color Attending Four-Year Public Institutions in Illinois," Northern Illinois University, Graduate Research Theses & Dissertations (2022). Jump back to footnote 5 in the text.↩
6. Melanie Hansen, "Student Loan Debt Statistics," Education Data Initiative (website), updated July 15, 2024; Newfield, The Great Mistake, 2018; Warner, Sustainable. Resilient. Free, 2020. Jump back to footnote 6 in the text.↩
7. Kate Bowles, "The thing is, in universities we have all the engineers, computer scientists, artists, linguists, ethicists, economists and historians you could hope for in a time of complex change. . . ," Mastodon, July 4, 2024. Jump back to footnote 7 in the text.↩
8. Ibid. Jump back to footnote 8 in the text.↩
9. Ruha Benjamin, Imagination: A Manifesto (Boston: Beacon Press, 2024). Jump back to footnote 9 in the text.↩
10. "The Game of School" is defined as "a mindset where you focus on only getting grades and everything else is secondary." See Terry Green et al., "Academic Struggles," in Liberated Learners (Pressbooks, 2022); CCSE, Aspirations over Time, YouTube (0:53), February 8, 2020. Jump back to footnote 10 in the text.↩
11. Ari Wallach, A Brief History of the Future, PBS, 2024. Jump back to footnote 11 in the text.↩
12. Jesse Stommel, Undoing the Grade: Why We Grade, and How to Stop (Hybrid Pedagogy Inc., 2023); Susan D. Blum, Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) (West Virginia University Press, 2020). Jump back to footnote 12 in the text.↩
13. Ashlee Sierra, "A Brief History of the Future: What It Means to Be Human," Iowa PBS, April 2, 2024. Jump back to footnote 13 in the text.↩
14. Terry Green, "Co-Creation as a Liberating Activity," Times Higher Education, July 21, 2023 Jump back to footnote 14 in the text.↩
15. Bowles, "The thing is, in universities we have all the engineers . . . ," July 4, 2024; There are already ideas circulating about how to build a better future for higher education. See Laura Czerniewicz and Catherine Cronin, eds., Higher Education for Good: Teaching and Learning Futures (Open Book Publishers, 2023). Jump back to footnote 15 in the text.↩

Karen Cangialosi is Co-Director at RIOS Institute.