And while opinions on these generative artificial intelligence tools (tools that create content) such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and CoPilot are mixed — one thing is clear. They’re here to stay and likely to become more and more prevalent.
Considering this, the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) and North Carolina’s Elon University’s Imagining the Digital Future Center conducted a survey of 337 university presidents, chancellors, provosts, rectors, academic affairs vice presidents, and academic deans on the impact of GenAI tools on campuses.
What they found was that while a majority of leaders were optimistic about the use of this technology, many had concerns, including:
- students developing an over-reliance on GenAI.
- academic integrity.
- exacerbating inequalities stemming from the digital divide.
While the survey reveals concerns, “it also points to an optimistic future, with a strong consensus around AI’s potential to enhance learning outcomes,” wrote Connie Book, president of Elon University, in a presentation shared with The News & Observer on the survey’s results.
Here’s a deeper look at findings.
AI GENERALLY VIEWED POSITIVELY BY LEADERS
The survey asked leaders to consider the positives and negatives of generative AI tools and evaluate how much they think the use of these tools will impact student learning outcomes at their institutions over the next five years:
- Forty-six percent of higher education leaders said the impact of generative AI in the next five years will be “somewhat for the better.”
- Meanwhile, 21 percent said it will be “a great deal for the better,” 11 percent said it will result in “not much change,” 17 percent said it will be “somewhat for the worse,” and 5 percent said they do not know.
As for the overall effect on the lives of students, 50 percent said the impact of AI would be “more positive than negative,” while 12 percent said it would be “more negative than positive.”
In terms of the effect on the future of their institutions, 45 percent said the impact of AI would be “more positive than negative,” 17 percent said it would be “more negative than positive,” and 27 percent said it would be “equally positive and negative.”
Among some of the positives generative AI tools could bring, a majority of leaders flagged the possibility of enhanced and customized student learning, improved research skills and increased creativity.
CONCERNS ON CHEATING, OVER-RELIANCE AND MORE
Negative aspects of AI use that leaders identified include over-reliance on AI tools, with 44 percent of leaders believing it will impact students “a lot” and 48 percent thinking it will impact students “some.”
Fifty-six percent of leaders also thought generative AI tools would increase concerns about students’ academic integrity “a lot,” while 39 percent thought it would have “some” impact.
Other concerns included decreased attention spans and widening digital inequities.
There were also concerns about cheating, with 21 percent of leaders reporting that cheating has increased “a lot” on their campuses, 38 percent saying it had increased “a little,” and 19 percent saying cheating levels had not changed.
Although many leaders believe cheating has become more prevalent, identifying generative AI content poses a challenge, with more than half of leaders feeling their faculty are either “not at all effective” or “not very effective” at recognizing AI-generated work.
Leaders also had different understandings of what cheating entailed when using AI-generated content.
DOUBTS ON STUDENT PREPAREDNESS, FACULTY USE OF AI
The majority of leaders believed students were using AI tools to complete their coursework, with 89 percent estimating that at least half of students use the tools.
Despite this, when asked how prepared they felt their spring 2024 graduates were in terms of understanding and using AI, only 1 percent thought they were “very prepared,” while 40 percent thought they were “somewhat prepared,” 53 percent thought they were “not very prepared,” and 6 percent thought they were “not at all prepared.”
Leaders had doubts about their institution’s ability to prepare students for the future and to prepare faculty to teach efficiently and mentor students.
The majority of leaders lacked confidence in students’ ability to work in environments where AI skills are important or that students understood the ethical issues raised by AI tools.
Leaders also believed faculty were lagging behind in their use of AI tools, with 62 percent estimating that fewer than half of faculty use them. Still, 83 percent of the academic leaders said they themselves used generative AI tools.
As for how leaders thought their institutions compared to other U.S. colleges and universities, only 3 percent thought they were “far ahead” of others, while 19 percent thought they were “above average,” 38 percent thought they were “about average,” 28 percent thought they were “below average,” and 7 percent thought they were “far behind.”
POLICIES, CLASSES ON AI
To address the changes brought about by AI, a majority of leaders said their institutions had written specific guidelines and policies on the appropriate and inappropriate use of AI tools for learning and teaching. They also reported creating task forces or groups to oversee and manage the implementation of AI tools across campuses.
Meanwhile, 44 percent of leaders said their institution had created new classes focused specifically on AI, while 49 percent had not. Nineteen percent said they had established a discipline, major, or minor in AI, while 75 percent had not.
Only 14 percent of leaders reported adopting AI literacy as an institutional or general education learning outcome.
In terms of funding for personnel, hardware, and software to integrate generative AI tools, 10 percent of leaders said they were spending “a lot more,” 53 percent said they were spending “a little more,” and 37 percent said they were “not spending any more.” Most said this new spending came from reallocating existing resources.
When it came to job cuts, the majority of leaders said reductions in faculty and teaching assistant positions were unlikely over the next five years. Only 1 percent anticipated a “major reduction,” 10 percent a “minor reduction,” 65 percent expected no change, 4 percent anticipated a “minor increase,” and 1 percent predicted a “major increase.” The remaining respondents were unsure.
However, reductions in staff positions were expected to be slightly higher. Three percent of leaders anticipated a “major reduction” and 25 percent a “minor reduction,” while 49 percent expected no change.
©2025 The Charlotte Observer. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
