Latest news with #DavidDeming
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Skepticism About College Is Hard to Shake
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. College-graduation ceremonies are expressions of joy, but also of relief. As photos are taken, tassels turned, hugs exchanged, the hope is that all of the hard work, and the money, will have been worth it. But many Americans aren't convinced that it is. Confidence in the institution of higher education has fallen sharply over the past decade, and among political groups, Republicans show the most skepticism. A 2024 Pew Research Center report noted that only one in four Americans says 'it's extremely or very important to have a four-year college degree in order to get a well-paying job in today's economy.' The fact that finding a job has gotten more difficult for recent graduates hasn't done much to inspire faith in higher education. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in late April that the unemployment rate for recent grads is at 5.8 percent (compared with the overall unemployment rate of 4.2 percent), its highest since July 2021. Some challenges in finding a job after graduation are more about the economic patterns of the past few years than they are about the deficiencies of college. In 2021, America was going through the 'Great Resignation,' when many people were quitting jobs to find better pay or better working conditions elsewhere. But after inflation rose dramatically that same year and the U.S. Federal Reserve raised interest rates in 2022, demand cooled for white-collar industry jobs such as those in technology and consulting. Now 'the Great Resignation has become what some people call the 'Great Stay,'' my colleague Derek Thompson told me. 'We're still adding jobs, but there's not as many openings for the musical chairs of the economy as there used to be.' The years immediately following the pandemic were also a time of major wage growth for traditionally low-wage industries, such as retail and hospitality, which employ a large share of workers with less formal education. But this growth may not last throughout a worker's life: In general, earnings for low-wage jobs that do not require a college degree tend to stagnate over time. 'Wages grow faster for more-educated workers because college is a gateway to professional occupations, such as business and engineering, in which workers learn new skills, get promoted, and gain managerial experience,' the economist David Deming explained in The Atlantic in 2023. If we take the recent unemployment stats as a result of specific post-pandemic trends, they shouldn't necessarily spook people into giving up on college. But questions about the benefit of a college degree far precede the pandemic. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimates that the earnings gap between college graduates and high-school graduates stopped widening around 2010 and has been fairly consistent ever since. The experts I spoke with were clear: The college wage premium is still high—in other words, college graduates make more money on average than nongraduates. In fact, the latest data suggest that the median salary for college graduates aged 22–27 is 50 percent higher than high-school graduates of the same age. But this premium doesn't appear to be going up. Part of this story is the fact that employers have found it easier in recent years to hire high-school graduates to do the same entry-level work as college graduates. As the San Francisco Bank researchers note, this may be because we've seen a relative slowdown in the invention of new technologies that favor college graduates who are educated in using them, like desktop computers did in the 1980s. And although it's too soon to tell the effect that generative AI is having on the job market for new grads, this tech seems likely to introduce the opposite dynamic: Instead of putting college graduates at an advantage, it could decrease the number of entry-level jobs that require more formal education. The college wage premium is still high, which means that it's still beneficial to get a degree. But for whom, exactly? A new working paper from Zachary Bleemer, an assistant professor of economics at Princeton, and Sarah Quincy, an assistant professor of economics at Vanderbilt, found that for the first half of the 20th century, college offered the same added wage value for students from both high- and low-income backgrounds. That changed after the 1960s: Since then, the overall return on college has grown, and the relative value of college for lower-income kids has steadily declined. Some of this is because lower-income students have become less likely than higher-income students to enroll in traditional four-year colleges, instead opting for community or for-profit colleges. Another reason, Bleemer told me, is that in recent decades, many states have chosen to invest more in their flagship schools than in the local public universities, where a large share of their students are enrolled. As the gaps between these schools have widened, Bleemer said, 'the relative value of college for the lower-income kids that predominantly go to these local public institutions has fallen.' What a student chooses to major in also matters: Higher-income students have become more likely to earn degrees in computer science and engineering in recent years. As universities have become more selective about which students they admit to these degree programs, 'lower-income kids are increasingly left out of those very high-wage disciplines,' he said. Bleemer had the same note of caution as the other experts I spoke with: Although the relative value of college for low-income students has fallen, 'it's still way bigger than zero.' He pointed me to studies from several states that show the value of college to the long-run outcomes of students who were just at the margins of being permitted to enroll in their state's public higher-education system—particularly those with lower incomes. The research shows that college-going is valuable for those kids—'far more valuable than the tuition costs' they accrue, Bleemer said. Even though the numbers make the case for college, much of Americans' distrust in higher education has nothing to do with return on investment. Some of their skepticism is rooted in the realities of a difficult job market, but another portion is rooted in broader political views and abstract notions about the perils of academia. These doubts may also have a basis in Americans' lack of faith in institutions, and in one another. Colleges can't solve those problems by themselves. But schools, and the governments that fund them, do have a role in earning that trust back—in strengthening universities' reputation as places for learning, discovering oneself, and finding abundant opportunity. More state and federal investment in higher education could help. As the Trump administration attempts to strip schools of federal funding, though, it's becoming clear that setting up colleges to better serve students is not a national priority. Related: The college backlash is going too far. (From 2023) Something alarming is happening to the job market. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic. A high IQ makes you an outsider, not a genius. The David Frum Show: Why are the media so afraid of Trump? No one can offer any hope, George Packer argues. Today's News Donald Trump's 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports have kicked in. The Congressional Budget Office released an analysis estimating that the tax bill working its way through Congress will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. It also estimated that an additional 10.9 million people will lose health insurance by 2034 because of cuts and new eligibility rules in the bill. President Trump said that Vladimir Putin told him he plans to respond to Ukraine's major drone attack on Russian airfields. More From The Atlantic Archivists aren't ready for the 'very online' era. A Ukrainian crime caper that undermines expectations Big Tech's AI endgame is coming into focus. Evening Read Mount Everest's Xenon-Gas Controversy Will Last Forever By Alex Hutchinson It was a travesty—two travesties, actually, separate but inextricably linked. In May 1953, Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first people to reach the summit of Mount Everest, a challenge that had killed more than a dozen people in the preceding decades and that scientists had once declared impossible. The catch: They breathed canisters of pure oxygen, an aid that the Everest pioneer George Mallory—one of those who died on the mountain—had once dismissed as 'a damnable heresy.' Read the full article. Culture Break Look. Spend time with photos of a spectacular eruption at Mount Etna. Read. These five books will redirect your attention when you need it. Play our daily crossword. Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
3 days ago
- Business
- Atlantic
America's College Crisis
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. College-graduation ceremonies are expressions of joy, but also of relief. As photos are taken, tassels turned, hugs exchanged, the hope is that all of the hard work, and the money, will have been worth it. But many Americans aren't convinced that it is. Confidence in the institution of higher education has fallen sharply over the past decade, and among political groups, Republicans show the most skepticism. A 2024 Pew Research Center report noted that only one in four Americans says 'it's extremely or very important to have a four-year college degree in order to get a well-paying job in today's economy.' The fact that finding a job has gotten more difficult for recent graduates hasn't done much to inspire faith in higher education. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in late April that the unemployment rate for recent grads is at 5.8 percent (compared with the overall unemployment rate of 4.2 percent), its highest since July 2021. Some challenges in finding a job after graduation are more about the economic patterns of the past few years than they are about the deficiencies of college. In 2021, America was going through the 'Great Resignation,' when many people were quitting jobs to find better pay or better working conditions elsewhere. But after inflation rose dramatically that same year and the U.S. Federal Reserve raised interest rates in 2022, demand cooled for white-collar industry jobs such as those in technology and consulting. Now 'the Great Resignation has become what some people call the 'Great Stay,'' my colleague Derek Thompson told me. 'We're still adding jobs, but there's not as many openings for the musical chairs of the economy as there used to be.' The years immediately following the pandemic were also a time of major wage growth for traditionally low-wage industries, such as retail and hospitality,which employ a large share of workers with less formal education. But this growth may not last throughout a worker's life: In general, earnings for low-wage jobs that do not require a college degree tend to stagnate over time. 'Wages grow faster for more-educated workers because college is a gateway to professional occupations, such as business and engineering, in which workers learn new skills, get promoted, and gain managerial experience,' the economist David Deming explained in The Atlantic in 2023. If we take the recent unemployment stats as a result of specific post-pandemic trends, they shouldn't necessarily spook people into giving up on college. But questions about the benefit of a college degree far precede the pandemic. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimates that the earnings gap between college graduates and high-school graduates stopped widening around 2010 and has been fairly consistent ever since. The experts I spoke with were clear: The college wage premium is still high—in other words, college graduates make more money on average than nongraduates. In fact, the latest data suggest that the median salary for college graduates aged 22–27 is 50 percent higher than high-school graduates of the same age. But this premium doesn't appear to be going up. Part of this story is the fact that employers have found it easier in recent years to hire high-school graduates to do the same entry-level work as college graduates. As the San Francisco Bank researchers note, this may be because we've seen a relative slowdown in the invention of new technologies that favor college graduates who are educated in using them, like desktop computers did in the 1980s. And although it's too soon to tell the effect that generative AI is having on the job market for new grads, this tech seems likely to introduce the opposite dynamic: Instead of putting college graduates at an advantage, it could decrease the number of entry-level jobs that require more formal education. The college wage premium is still high, which means that it's still beneficial to get a degree. But for whom, exactly? A new working paper from Zachary Bleemer, an assistant professor of economics at Princeton, and Sarah Quincy, an assistant professor of economics at Vanderbilt, found that for the first half of the 20th century, college offered the same added wage value for students from both high- and low-income backgrounds. That changed after the 1960s: Since then, the overall return on college has grown, and the relative value of college for lower-income kids has steadily declined. Some of this is because lower-income students have become less likely than higher-income students to enroll in traditional four-year colleges, instead opting for community or for-profit colleges. Another reason, Bleemer told me, is that in recent decades, many states have chosen to invest more in their flagship schools than in the local public universities, where a large share of their students are enrolled. As the gaps between these schools have widened, Bleemer said, 'the relative value of college for the lower-income kids that predominantly go to these local public institutions has fallen.' What a student chooses to major in also matters: Higher-income students have become more likely to earn degrees in computer science and engineering in recent years. As universities have become more selective about which students they admit to these degree programs, 'lower-income kids are increasingly left out of those very high-wage disciplines,' he said. Bleemer had the same note of caution as the other experts I spoke with: Although the relative value of college for low-income students has fallen, 'it's still way bigger than zero.' He pointed me to studies from several states that show the value of college to the long-run outcomes of students who were just at the margins of being permitted to enroll in their state's public higher-education system—particularly those with lower incomes. The research shows that college-going is valuable for those kids—'far more valuable than the tuition costs' they accrue, Bleemer said. Even though the numbers make the case for college, much of Americans' distrust in higher education has nothing to do with return on investment. Some of their skepticism is rooted in the realities of a difficult job market, but another portion is rooted in broader political views and abstract notions about the perils of academia. These doubts may also have a basis in Americans' lack of faith in institutions, and in one another. Colleges can't solve those problems by themselves. But schools, and the governments that fund them, do have a role in earning that trust back—in strengthening universities' reputation as places for learning, discovering oneself, and finding abundant opportunity. More state and federal investment in higher education could help. As the Trump administration attempts to strip schools of federal funding, though, it's becoming clear that setting up colleges to better benefit students is not a national priority. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic. Today's News Donald Trump's 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports have kicked in. The Congressional Budget Office released an analysis estimating that the tax bill working its way through Congress will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. It also estimated that an additional 10.9 million people will lose health insurance by 2034 because of cuts and new eligibility rules in the bill. President Trump said that Vladimir Putin told him he plans to respond to Ukraine's major drone attack on Russian airfields. Evening Read Mount Everest's Xenon-Gas Controversy Will Last Forever It was a travesty—two travesties, actually, separate but inextricably linked. In May 1953, Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first people to reach the summit of Mount Everest, a challenge that had killed more than a dozen people in the preceding decades and that scientists had once declared impossible. The catch: They breathed canisters of pure oxygen, an aid that the Everest pioneer George Mallory—one of those who died on the mountain—had once dismissed as 'a damnable heresy.' Look. Spend time with photos of a spectacular eruption at Mount Etna. Read. These five books will redirect your attention when you need it. Play our daily crossword. Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter.
Forbes
29-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The Human Factor: What Great Leadership Looks Like In The Age Of AI
circa 1939: Musician Lois Kendall plays the cello while a mechanical man named Elektro 'conducts' ... More on stage as part of a Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co demonstration at the World's Fair, Flushing Meadow Park, Queens, New York City. (Photo by) Everyone agrees that AI is changing the game for management and leadership. But no one agrees on how. The breathless predictions vary: AI will flatten hierarchies. It will demand faster decision-making. It will replace middle managers. It will make middle managers more essential than ever. It will automate human jobs. It will augment human teams. It will change everything… and possibly nothing. As Terence Mauri, the author of The Upside of Disruption and founder of the management think tank Hack Future Lab said, 'The story of AI is still being written." Amid this noisy speculation, a new working paper from Harvard's Ben Weidmann, Yixian Xu, and David Deming offers something refreshingly grounded: data. And better still, insight. In a large, pre-registered experiment, the researchers had individuals lead teams made up either of humans or AI agents to solve collaborative puzzles. Some teams soared. Others floundered. The difference wasn't whether the teammates were human or not—it was the quality of the human leader. In fact, the impact of leadership was huge: swapping a weak leader for a strong one improved team performance by 0.65 standard deviations. That's a 5x effect. And perhaps most striking of all: the best leaders excelled regardless of whether their teammates were people or AI. Good leadership, it turns out, scales across species. The most successful leaders weren't louder or more dominant. They asked more questions. They encouraged conversational turn-taking. They used 'we' more than 'I.' In short, they behaved like good facilitators—guiding the team's thinking rather than directing it. This research offers more than a new experimental design. It offers a north star for navigating what is already one of the most confusing transformations in recent organizational history. We know that AI is poised to change how we work. But that 'how' is often too narrowly defined. The conversation tends to focus on task automation: Which jobs are safe? Which skills will still matter? But the Harvard study reminds us that what really matters is how we work together. And in high-performing teams—whether composed of humans or machines—strong human leadership remains essential. That's not a feel-good sentiment. It's empirical. The researchers found that leadership skills like emotional intelligence, fluid reasoning, and self-awareness (including accurate self-assessment!) were strongly correlated with success. Demographics like age, education, and even typing speed? Not so much. Even more interesting: leaders who had a clear sense of their own limitations—those who accurately evaluated their strengths and weaknesses—performed better (a point that tracks with many recent studies on humility). Why? Because they knew when to delegate, when to ask for help, and when to shut up and listen—even to an algorithm. This reframes the conversation. The question isn't just, 'What can AI do?' It's 'What can I do best—and how do I team up smarter?' As Mauri told me, 'The biggest risk today isn't AI. It's leading with yesterday's logic. Let's not waste one of the biggest reframing moments in our lifetimes because the future isn't just about tech and trends. It's about mindsets and choices, too.' Based on the Harvard study and the work of Mauri and other pioneer in the space of leadership and AI, here are three takeaways for any leader looking to future-proof their skills: This latest research is a helpful step toward making sense of leadership in an AI-saturated workplace. But it also serves as a reminder that the fundamentals haven't changed as much as we think. Yes, the tools are new. But the task is the same: helping people (and now, machines) work better together. As with most revolutions, it's not the tech that determines success. It's the people who figure out how to lead with it.
Los Angeles Times
10-05-2025
- Los Angeles Times
AI chatbots have already completely upended schools. Your world will be next
Good morning. Here's what you need to know to start your weekend: If you are part of the shrinking population that still hasn't tried ChatGPT, it's time. My first experiments with an AI chatbot shook me. I asked it questions related my job and the memo it offered was, at least at first glance, convincing. My mind raced, fear overtook me, I slammed my computer shut and went on a long walk. Since then I've tried to avoid AI and chatbots. But this week I was shaken out of complacency. Two stories offered a strange and colorful view into skyrocketing AI use Students from high schools and colleges around America made it clear in James D. Walsh's New York magazine story: AI chatbots are as ubiquitous in schools as iPhones. In interview after interview, students explain how they use AI to outline, write and edit essays, develop computer code, conduct research and, in one egregious case, build tools to help one another blatantly cheat. [Read more: Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College, via New York Magazine] And then Harvard economist David Deming shared stunning facts about AI adoption on the excellent Podcast Plain English with Derek Thompson. According to Deming's research, '39 percent of the U.S. population age 18-64 used generative AI. More than 24 percent of workers used it at least once in the week prior to being surveyed, and nearly one in nine used it every workday.' This technology is becoming common-place faster than the personal computer or internet did, his research shows. [Listen here: The Job Market for Young Grads Is Flashing Red via The Ringer] A lesson from the Luddites: New technology will offer a new deal In the early 1800s when industrialized machinery first developed, a group known as the Luddites broke into the world's first factories and smashed the machines. Former L.A. Times tech reporter Brian Merchant tells their story (and its lessons for the AI age) in his incredible book Blood in the Machine. The Luddites were maligned as resisting progress. But put yourself in their shoes. For generations their bargain was to weave fabrics at home 3-5 days a week and sell their wares on the market. Suddenly, somebody invented a machine and offered them a new deal: Work in this stinky dark factory or starve. Like the industrial revolution, there's no stopping AI — only making the best of it You'll find AI-driven work everywhere now. In your text messages, your email, across dating apps, supercharging medical research, revolutionizing a doctor's ability to diagnose disease, speaking for the dead and giving you a pretty good answer to any question you pose in Google search. And with a large part of its development coming from right here in Silicon Valley, Californians will have to lead the charge developing the regulations, norms and usage that prevent AI from ushering in a dystopia of inequality. It's going to require standing up to the tech giants and their money while also accepting that AI is the future whether we like it or not. Figuring out how we can use (and not be used by) this tool is still something only humans can do, together. More on AI from the L.A. Times Toxins in the soil where the fires burned The LAFD union president who was suspended speaks out A threat to the new Chuckwalla monument The Menendez brothers More big stories Get unlimited access to the Los Angeles Times. Subscribe here. ADUs made of shipping containers and robot-built bungalows are a growing trend as L.A. rebuilds post-fire. Prefab housing is poised to push forward as residents in fire-ravaged neighborhoods seek to rebuild — fast. Is L.A. ready for a robot-built bungalow? More great reads How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Going out Staying in Have a great weekend, from the Essential California team Karim Doumar, head of newsletters Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
Forbes
02-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Federal AI Policy Is Here. Are Universities And Schools Ready?
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA - JUNE 29: People walk on the campus of the University of North Carolina ... More Chapel Hill on June 29, 2023 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by) Artificial intelligence is now embedded in the U.S. education agenda. On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the Executive Order on Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, marking a major federal investment in AI literacy. The order calls for AI to be taught in K–12 classrooms, directs new funding for teacher training, and encourages public-private partnerships through apprenticeships and a national student competition. It also establishes a White House Task Force on AI Education, underscoring the federal government's commitment to preparing the next generation for an AI-shaped world. Despite talk of advancing AI efforts, many schools and universities remain stuck at the starting gate. The consequences for students are becoming increasingly dire. Recent labor market data reveals why this implementation gap is so concerning. The New York Federal Reserve notes that labor conditions for recent college graduates have "deteriorated noticeably," with unemployment for new grads reaching an unusually high 5.8 percent. Harvard economist David Deming suggests that entry-level positions traditionally filled by college graduates, such as reading and synthesizing information, producing reports, and analyzing data, are precisely the kind of jobs that generative AI can now perform. Perhaps more alarming is the "recent-grad gap"—the difference between unemployment rates for young college graduates versus the overall workforce. This gap hit an all-time low in early 2025, meaning today's graduates face a job market that's relatively worse for them than any time in the past four decades. This could be an early signal that businesses are replacing entry-level positions with AI tools, particularly in law, consulting, and tech sectors. Against this backdrop, educational institutions' slow response to AI integration appears increasingly troubling. A global survey by UNESCO in 2024 found that fewer than 10% of education institutions have developed formal policies on generative AI. Among those that do, approximately half provide clear guidance, while the other half leave decisions to individual departments and teachers. Almost 20% of respondents weren't even sure whether such policies existed. This fragmentation is a missed opportunity to define the role of AI in education before it defines us. Higher education faces a similar conundrum. According to Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab's 2024 Student Voice survey, 31% of undergraduates don't know when or how to use generative AI tools like ChatGPT in their coursework. Meanwhile, EDUCAUSE's 2025 AI Landscape Study shows that although 57% of colleges now consider AI a strategic priority, fewer than 40% have formal use policies—and most of those focus only on plagiarism rather than broader curricular or community implications. These gaps come at a time when student adoption of AI is near-universal. The Higher Education Policy Institute's 2025 Student Generative AI Survey , a UK-based survey, found that 92% of students now use AI in some form, up from 66% in 2024, with 88% reporting they've used generative AI for assessments. Another survey by the Digital Education Council found 86% of students already using AI in their studies. Yet the same surveys reveal that only 36% of students have received support from their institution to develop AI skills, despite overwhelming student belief that these skills are essential. This disconnect between institutional hesitation and student innovation is exactly why I developed the AI Readiness Checklist. Rather than starting with compliance or risk, the checklist is built to prompt strategic reflection and action across five domains that shape campus culture: policy governance, faculty training, student literacy, technology oversight, and community trust. It's not meant to prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution, but to support schools in assessing where they are—and charting a path toward where they want to be. For example, on the policy front, few universities have moved beyond reactive, classroom-based rules. Yet forward-looking institutions like Arizona State University are embedding AI into teaching, research, advising, and operations. ASU became the first higher education institution to collaborate with OpenAI in January 2024, and through its AI Innovation Challenge has already launched over 200 projects, including an AI tutor that supports psychology students with real-time guidance and feedback. In its press release, ASU President Michael M. Crow emphasized that "ASU recognizes that augmented and artificial intelligence systems are here to stay" while committing to "participate directly in the responsible evolution of AI learning technologies." Other institutions are also responding with vision. Georgia Tech hosts an AI hub called Tech AI to integrate research and practice across discplines. Stanford University's Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence exemplifies how higher education can lead the way in integrating ethics, policy, and interdisciplinary collaboration into AI development. These models highlights the critical role universities can play in aligning AI innovation with public good. And yet, the gap between what's possible and what's common at most institutions remains vast. Many campuses lack clarity on even basic questions: Who oversees AI decision-making? How are tools vetted? Are there meaningful opportunities for students and faculty to engage with the technology beyond fears of cheating? To close this readiness gap, institutions must take a multi-dimensional approach—one that begins with dialogue. Faculty need support with learning how to use AI tools, as well as in how to help students navigate them ethically. Administrators must develop policies that go beyond enforcement and instead reflect community values. IT teams must scrutinize vendor contracts for hidden AI functions, and governance leaders must consider the implications of autonomous ("agentic") AI that can simulate decision-making or human presence. Crucially, this work must be transparent. Colleges that fail to communicate their approach risk not just backlash, but erosion of trust. The AI Readiness Checklist includes questions like: Does your institution offer plain-language explanations of AI policies? Are students and faculty invited to provide feedback? Is leadership visibly engaged in the conversation? The answers to these questions—and the steps that follow—can define whether an institution remains competitive in the AI age. This is a pivotal moment. As McKinsey & Company's 2025 AI Workforce Report highlights, AI technologies are "already highly capable and rapidly advancing," with profound implications for workforce preparation. Their research indicates that 71% of employees trust their employers to act ethically as they develop AI—higher than their trust in universities (67%), large tech companies (61%), or startups (51%). This places a significant responsibility on educational institutions to help students develop both the technical skills and ethical frameworks needed to lead in an AI-driven workplace. If higher education is to meet this moment with purpose, we need more than policies. We need principles. We need a shared vision of what it means to lead with AI, and the courage to build structures that support it. For a generation of students entering an increasingly AI-automated job market, the stakes couldn't be higher.
