For many graduates in the creative industries, the question “what do you do?” has never had a simple answer.
A graduate might be holding down part-time work in a gallery, freelancing in digital design, tutoring on the side, stage managing in the summer, and selling their own work online. It’s a patchwork, a blend, a portfolio.
And yet when we measure their success through Graduate Outcomes, the official data collection exercise on graduate employment, they’re told to tick a single box. The reality of hybridity is flattened into the illusion of underemployment.
This is not a trivial issue. Policymakers rely on Graduate Outcomes (and reports based on the collection, like this year’s What do graduates do? out today) to make judgements about which subjects, courses and institutions are “succeeding” in employability terms. Yet in the creative arts, where portfolio working is both the norm and, in many ways, a strength, these categories misrepresent lived reality. The result is a story told back to government, employers and students in which creative graduates appear more precarious, less stable, and less successful than they often are.
Portfolio careers are current and they’re the future
The creative economy has been pointing towards this future for years. In What Do Graduates Do? , the creative arts overview that Elli Whitefoot and I authored, we found repeated evidence of graduates combining multiple sources of income, employment, freelancing, self-employment, often in ways that nurtured both security and creativity. The forthcoming 2025 overview by Burtin and Halfin reinforces the same point: hybridity is a structural feature, not a marginal quirk.
This hybridity is not inherently negative. Portfolio work can provide resilience, satisfaction and autonomy. As Sharland and Slesser argued in 2024, the future workforce needs creative thinkers who can move across boundaries. Portfolio careers develop precisely those capabilities. At the Advance HE Symposium earlier this year, I led a workshop on future-proofing creative graduates through AI, entrepreneurship and digital skills, all of which thrive in a portfolio setting.
Policy writers and senior leaders need to wake up quickly to realise that creative graduates are early adopters of what more of the labour market is beginning to look like. Academic staff, for example, increasingly combine research grants, teaching roles, consultancy and side projects. Tech and green industries are also normalising project-based work, short-term contracts and hybrid roles. In other words, the creative industries are not an outlier; they are a preview.
Why measurement matters
If the data system is misaligned with reality, the consequences are serious. Universities risk being penalised in performance frameworks like TEF or in media rankings if their graduates’ outcomes are deemed “poor.” Students risk being discouraged from pursuing creative courses because outcomes data suggests they are less employable. Policymakers risk designing interventions based on a caricature rather than the real graduate experience.
As Conroy and Firth highlight, employability education must learn from the present, and the present is messy, hybrid, and global. Yet our data systems remain stuck in a single-job paradigm.
The wider sector context is equally pressing. Graduate vacancies have collapsed from around 180,000 in 2023 to just 55,000 this year, according to Reed. Almost seven in ten undergraduates are now working during term-time just to keep going according to the latest student academic experience survey. And international graduates face higher unemployment rates, around 11 per cent, compared with 3 per cent for UK PGT graduates. The labour market picture is not just challenging, it is distorted when portfolio working is coded as failure.
Without intervention, this issue will persist. Not because creative graduates are difficult to track, but because our measurement tools are still based on outdated assumptions. It is therefore encouraging that HESA is taking steps to improve the Graduate Outcomes survey questionnaire through its cognitive testing exercise. I am currently working with HESA and Jisc to explore how we can better capture hybrid and portfolio careers. These efforts will help bridge the gap in understanding, but far more nuanced data is needed if we are to fully represent the complex and evolving realities of creative graduates.
So what should change?
Data collection needs to become more granular, capturing the combination of employment, self-employment, freelancing and further study rather than forcing graduates into a false hierarchy. Recognising hybridity would make Graduate Outcomes a more accurate reflection of real graduate lives.
One complicating factor is that students who do not complete a creative programme, for example, those who transfer courses or graduate from non-creative disciplines but sustain a creative portfolio, are even less likely to record or recognise that work within Graduate Outcomes. Because it isn’t linked to their area of study, they rarely see it as a legitimate graduate destination, and valuable evidence of creative contribution goes uncounted.
We also need to value more than salary. The “graduate premium” may be shrinking in monetary terms, but its non-monetary returns, civic participation, wellbeing, and resilience, are expanding. Research from Firth and Gratrick in BERA Bites identifies clear gaps in how universities support learners to develop and articulate these broader forms of employability.
Evidence must also become richer and longer-term. The work of Prospects Luminate, AGCAS CITG and the Policy and Evidence Centre on skills mismatches shows that snapshot surveys are no longer sufficient. Graduates’ careers unfold over years, not months, and portfolio working often evolves into sustainable, fulfilling trajectories.
Beyond the UK there are instructive examples of how others have rethought the link between learning and employability. None offers a perfect model for capturing the complexity of graduate working lives, but together they point the way. The Netherlands Validation of Prior Learning system recognises skills gained from outside formal education, Canada’s ELMLP platform connects education and earnings data to map real career pathways, and Denmarks register-based labour statistics explicitly track people holding more than one job. If the UK continues to rely on outdated, single-job measures, it risks being left behind.
Beyond the creative industries
This is not an argument limited to art schools or design faculties. The wider labour market is moving in the same direction. Skills-based hiring is on the rise, with employers in AI and green sectors already downplaying traditional degree requirements in favour of demonstrable competencies. Academic precarity is, in effect, a form of portfolio career. The idea of a single linear graduate role is increasingly a historical fiction.
In this context, the creative industries offer higher education a lesson. They have been navigating portfolio realities for decades. Rather than treating this as a problem to be solved, policymakers could treat it as a model to be understood.
The full beauty of graduate success
When we collapse a graduate’s career into a single tick-box, we erase the full beauty of what they are building. We turn resilience into precarity, adaptability into instability, creativity into failure.
If higher education is serious about employability, we need to update our measures to reflect reality. That means capturing hybridity, valuing breadth as well as salary, and designing policy that starts with the lived experiences of graduates rather than the convenience of categories.
Portfolio careers are not the exception. They are the shape of things to come. And higher education, if it is to remain relevant, must learn how to see them clearly.
Higher ed, government and workforce leaders are discussing employability skills and work-based learning more than they ever have (at least, in my lifetime). So are students. Recent research shines a light on where and how students contemplate the connection between college and careers (particularly the increasingly influential role of social media) and what they expect. Marketers can leverage these consumer insights to influence both product and positioning to develop, implement and communicate work-integrated learning experience to meet student and workforce needs.
Students Get Career, College and Life Advice From Social Media
Seventy percent of young adults use social media to learn about careers,and it’s the top tool young adults use for self-discovery, despite a lack of encouragement from most adults and career navigators/counselors. Students talk about workforce skills when they talk to each other online about going to college—about 20 percent of these posts are about skills needed for jobs. They believe transferable skills are valuable to keep their career options open, particularly for those who don’t know what they want to do in their future careers. Specifically, they talk about:
Relationship-building skills like networking, persuasive speaking and small group leadership
Basic math and writing skills
Study skills
Interview skills
Forums are advice-seeking and experience-sharing platforms, and when students talk about needing workforce skills, they receive encouraging advice. Suggestions include using extra courses, academic services and resources to gain employability skills to help them find a job after graduation. Students are also encouraged to develop practical critical thinking and social skills because, in the words of those giving advice, “a degree doesn’t guarantee success.”
When students think about preparing for a job, they prioritize internships. In an analysis of over 600,000 forum conversations about college admissions Campus Sonar conducted to inform Jeff Selingo’s book Dream School: Finding The College That’s Right for You, internships were the most common form of workforce training discussed. When students make their college decision, they consider whether a campus provides them greater access to internship opportunities. Sometimes students interpret a rural campus as one without internship opportunities (which isn’t exactly true), and students consider if the campus gives them access to a connected network to find future internships and jobs. Another consideration is the value of an institution’s reputation with employers or intern hiring managers.
However, these conversations revealed that students don’t really know what happens in an internship or how to get one. So they use online forums to seek advice on obtaining an internship, leveraging it, securing a job after graduation and exploring alternative careers outside their major.
This is a storytelling opportunity for campuses. Specifically, to bridge the gap between current or recent interns and prospective and first-year students. Students who completed internships don’t have the chance to tell the students coming behind them what it’s like or how it helped them. This transition point is an excellent chance to engage recent interns to share their experiences directly with students or prospects to provide motivation and guidance in the peer-to-peer form students want. Using social media—the place where young people are seeking this advice—is crucial.
Students Need to Understand the Connection Between Curriculum, Skill Building and Careers
When considering college, students are already thinking about what comes next. Over 10 years of social listening research examining how students talk about college admissions, 62 percent of conversations focused on the postgraduation path. But when the connections between a college’s curriculum, employability skills and careers aren’t clear, students think the burden is on them to build the skills and chart their path.
This was particularly clear in Campus Sonar’s 2024 Rebuilding Public Trust in Higher Education social intelligence study, which found that 45 percent of peer-to-peer conversations about the value of college included cautionary advice that students may be on their own to make crucial connections between curriculum, skill building and careers.
Many colleges struggle to communicate these connections effectively. Here are two doing an excellent job.
Kettering University in Flint, Mich. For 100 years, Kettering has focused on work-integrated learning with a curriculum that rotates students between the classroom and co-op work placements in 12-week intervals. Ninety-eight percent of their students are employed after graduation, and the ongoing integration of students in the workforce produces valuable student feedback, enabling curriculum shifts to keep up with ever-changing employer needs.
Kettering is historically focused on STEM, but the university recently launched the School of Foundational Studies, traditionally known as liberal arts. The core curriculum emphasizes a connected, human-centered approach and integrates a STEM focus with early professional development and ethical decision-making, preparing students to navigate complexity with intellectual agility. We know the liberal arts prepares students for the workforce, but Kettering is shifting the narrative and dropping the misunderstood phrase to put relevance and impact like ethical decision-making and intellectual agility front and center.
Moravian University is another example. The medium-size, private, religiously affiliated institution created Elevate as part of its undergraduate experience. It’s a career readiness digital badging system to help students clearly see the pathways for developing and demonstrating skills in communication, critical thinking leadership and more. Elevate is part of Moravian’s distinctive and branded undergraduate student experience, which is a four-year pathway to a “successful future and a career you love.” The Elevate experience goes year by year and explains how students scaffold their experiences, learnings and badges and the support they get along the way.
Career navigation is a prevailing concept in this space right now and is critical in empowering students to truly navigate their own careers rather than expect the university to take them from A to B. Students need to become their own career navigator and be confident upon graduation that they have the navigation skills. Integrated curricula like those I’ve highlighted here achieve that outcome.
Not all campuses are equipped to develop a work-integrated curriculum independently, meaning the product offered to students may not yet be at the place where it can be positioned in a way that meets the current needs. An ecosystem of partners has developed over the last decade to help and is highlighted at workforce-focused higher ed events such as the Horizons Summit, SXSW EDU and ASU+GSV Summit.
For example, Riipen connects educators, learners and employers (particularly small businesses) to integrate short-term, paid projects into coursework—including remote work opportunities. Education at Work connects students to résumé-building, paying jobs at top national employers like Intuit and Discover to build durable skills and unlock career pathways within the organization. A strong relationship with your provost or career services office will ensure the marketing team is aware of the “product features” that are evolving on your campus to connect classroom to career.
Take Action
Tell as many individual stories as you can to help students see themselves in your graduates, develop a sense of belonging and trust outcomes achieved by a peer. Tell the types of stories (or empower students/alumni to tell their own) that would be offered as positive anecdotes in social media (e.g., TikTok, Reddit). Recognizing that resources are finite and stories from “someone like me” are nearly always more influential than polished marketing content, social listening bridges the gap to identify and amplify stories students and alumni already share.
Include program-level excellence in your brand narrative to more specifically connect curriculum and programming to careers. Support your claims with data (e.g., job placement, salaries, top employers), but don’t rely solely on statistics—always connect the data to stories.
Emphasize support structures and peer-to-peer connections such as experiential learning programs, career services opportunities, paid internship support, peer internship mentoring, etc., so students don’t feel like they’re on their own to navigate their career path.
A career-centered education built on real experience
One of the most transformative aspects of Career and Technical Education is how it connects learning to real life. When students understand that what they’re learning is preparing them for long and fulfilling careers, they engage more deeply. They build confidence, competence, and the practical skills employers seek in today’s competitive economy.
I’ve seen that transformation firsthand, both as a teacher and someone who spent two decades outside the classroom as a financial analyst working with entrepreneurs. I began teaching Agricultural Science in 1987, but stepped away for 20 years to gain real-world experience in banking and finance. When I returned to teaching, I brought those experiences with me, and they changed the way I taught.
Financial literacy in my Ag classes was not just another chapter in the curriculum–it became a bridge between the classroom and the real world. Students were not just completing assignments; they were developing skills that would serve them for life. And they were thriving. At Rio Rico High School in Arizona, we embed financial education directly into our Ag III and Ag IV courses. Students not only gain technical knowledge but also earn the Arizona Department of Education’s Personal Finance Diploma seal. I set a clear goal: students must complete their certifications by March of their senior year. Last year, 22 students achieved a 100% pass rate.
Those aren’t just numbers. They’re students walking into the world with credentials, confidence, and direction. That’s the kind of outcome only CTE can deliver at scale.
This is where curriculum systems designed around authentic, career-focused content make all the difference. With the right structure and tools, educators can consistently deliver high-impact instruction that leads to meaningful, measurable outcomes.
CTE tools that work
Like many teachers, I had to adapt quickly when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. I transitioned to remote instruction with document cameras, media screens, and Google Classroom. That’s when I found iCEV. I started with a 30-day free trial, and thanks to the support of their team, I was up and running fast.
iCEV became the adjustable wrench in my toolbox: versatile, reliable, and used every single day. It gave me structure without sacrificing flexibility. Students could access content independently, track their progress, and clearly see how their learning connected to real-world careers.
But the most powerful lesson I have learned in CTE has nothing to do with tech or platforms. It is about trust. My advice to any educator getting started with CTE? Don’t start small. Set the bar high. Trust your students. They will rise. And when they do, you’ll see how capable they truly are.
From classroom to career: The CTE trajectory
CTE offers something few other educational pathways can match: a direct, skills-based progression from classroom learning to career readiness. The bridge is built through internships, industry partnerships, and work-based learning: components that do more than check a box. They shape students into adaptable, resilient professionals.
In my program, students leave with more than knowledge. They leave with confidence, credentials, and a clear vision for their future. That’s what makes CTE different. We’re not preparing students for the next test. We’re preparing them for the next chapter of their lives.
These opportunities give students a competitive edge. They introduce them to workplace dynamics, reinforce classroom instruction, and open doors to mentorship and advancement. They make learning feel relevant and empowering.
As explored in the broader discussion on why the world needs CTE, the long-term impact of CTE extends far beyond individual outcomes. It supports economic mobility, fills critical workforce gaps, and ensures that learners are equipped not only for their first job, but for the evolution of work across their lifetimes.
CTE educators as champions of opportunity
Behind every successful student story is an educator or counselor who believed in their potential and provided the right support at the right time. As CTE educators, we’re not just instructors; we are workforce architects, building pipelines from education to employment with skill and heart.
We guide students through certifications, licenses, career clusters, and postsecondary options. We introduce students to nontraditional career opportunities that might otherwise go unnoticed, and we ensure each learner is on a path that fits their strengths and aspirations.
To sustain this level of mentorship and innovation, educators need access to tools that align with both classroom needs and evolving industry trends. High-quality guides provide frameworks for instruction, career planning, and student engagement, allowing us to focus on what matters most: helping every student achieve their full potential.
Local roots, national impact
When we talk about long and fulfilling careers, we’re also talking about the bigger picture: stronger local economies, thriving communities, and a workforce that’s built to last.
CTE plays a vital role at every level. It prepares students for in-demand careers that support their families, power small businesses, and fill national workforce gaps. States that invest in high-quality CTE programs consistently see the return: lower dropout rates, higher postsecondary enrollment, and greater job placement success.
But the impact goes beyond metrics. When one student earns a certification, that success ripples outward—it lifts families, grows businesses, and builds stronger communities.
CTE isn’t just about preparing students for jobs. It’s about giving them purpose. And when we invest in that purpose, we invest in long-term progress.
Empowering the next generation with the right tools
Access matters. The best ideas and strategies won’t create impact unless they are available, affordable, and actionable for the educators who need them. That’s why it’s essential for schools to explore resources that can strengthen their existing programs and help them grow.
A free trial offers schools a way to explore these solutions without risk—experiencing firsthand how career-centered education can fit into their unique context. For those seeking deeper insights, a live demo can walk teams through the full potential of a platform built to support student success from day one.
When programs are equipped with the right tools, they can exceed minimum standards. They can transform the educational experience into a launchpad for lifelong achievement.
CTE is more than a pathway. It is a movement driven by student passion, educator commitment, and a collective belief in the value of hard work and practical knowledge. Every certification earned, every skill mastered, and every student empowered brings us closer to a future built on long and fulfilling careers for everyone.
Dr. Richard McPherson is an Agriculture Science Teacher at Rio Rico High School in Arizona. A former financial analyst and CTE advocate, he returned to the classroom with a passion for combining real-world experience with purpose-driven instruction.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Today’s medicine is deeply rooted in the advancements of methods and technology in the field of medical research. From uncovering the causes of diseases to developing new therapies and preventive strategies, medical researchers connect the curiosity of science with the compassion of medicine.
Alvin Pham
Pre-Medical Committee, American Physician Scientists Association
Behind every statistic is a patient, and behind every breakthrough is a team of scientists, physicians, and participants working toward a healthier world. These diverse goals of medical research give rise to a range of specialized careers, each contributing to health innovation in unique ways. The following are some of the most impactful paths within the field.
Physician-scientists
Physician-scientists combine clinical care with laboratory or clinical research. They investigate disease mechanisms, develop therapies, and translate discoveries from the bench to the bedside.
It requires an M.D./D.O. and Ph.D. (about 8 years), followed by 3-7 years of residency and fellowship training, or an M.D./D.O. (4 years) with residency and research experience.
Physician-scientists bridge the gap between science and medicine by turning laboratory findings into real treatments. Their dual expertise enables them to identify and resolve clinical needs and lead interdisciplinary teams that directly improve patient outcomes.
Clinical research scientists
Clinical research scientists design and conduct studies to evaluate new treatments, diagnostics, and interventions in human subjects. They often work in hospitals, universities, or pharmaceutical companies, focusing on the safety and efficacy of medical innovations.
To become a clinical research scientist typically requires a Ph.D. in biomedical sciences or clinical research (about 4–6 years) or an M.D./D.O. (4 years) with research experience. Postdoctoral training may add 2–4 years.
Clinical research scientists advance evidence-based medicine by generating the data that guides clinical decisions. Their work ensures that new drugs, devices, and therapies are both safe and effective before reaching patients.
Public health researchers
Public health researchers investigate population-level health trends, disease prevention strategies, and policy impacts. Their work informs public health programs, pandemic response, and health equity initiatives.
This role typically requires a Master of Public Health (M.P.H.) (about 2 years) or a Dr.P.H./Ph.D. in public health or epidemiology (about 4–6 years).
Public health researchers shape the health of entire populations through data-driven research and public policy. Their work reduces disease burden, addresses health disparities, and guides interventions that save lives on a global scale.
Medical anthropologists
Medical anthropologists study how culture, society, and behavior shape health and illness. They often work in global health, public policy, or academic research, analyzing medical practices across different populations.
This job typically requires a Ph.D. in anthropology or medical anthropology (about 4-6 years), sometimes preceded by an M.A. in anthropology (about 2 years).
Medical anthropologists link social and cultural factors and show how those influence health behaviors and care delivery. Their insights improve communication between healthcare providers and patients, fostering culturally sensitive and effective medical practice.
Biotechnology researchers and engineers
Biotechnology researchers and engineers develop and test new biomedical technologies such as genetic therapies, diagnostic tools, or drug delivery systems. They work in academic, corporate, or government research labs, bridging biology and engineering.
This role typically requires a Ph.D. in biotechnology, molecular biology, or bioengineering (about 4-6 years), although Master’s-level researchers (2 years) can enter industry positions earlier.
Biotechnology researchers drive innovation in medicine by developing new tools and technologies that transform diagnosis and treatment. Their discoveries enable personalized medicine and accelerate the development of next-generation therapeutics.
Medical research is not a single path or person but a network of disciplines united by a shared goal: to improve human health through discovery and innovation. Whether exploring cultural influences on health as an anthropologist or translating lab findings into clinical care as a physician-scientist, each role contributes a vital piece to the puzzle of modern medicine. Together, these careers form the foundation of scientific progress, turning questions into cures and curiosity into compassion.
Join HEPI and the University of Southampton for a webinar on Monday 10 November 2025 from 11am to 12pm to mark the launch of a new collection of essays, AI and the Future of Universities. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the collection’s key themes and the urgent questions surrounding AI’s impact on higher education.
This blog was kindly authored by Richard Brown, Associate Fellow at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.
Universities are on the front line of a new technological revolution. Generative AI (genAI) use (mainly large language mode-based chatbots like ChaptGPT and Claude) is almost universal among students. Plagiarism and accuracy are continuing challenges, and universities are considering how learning and assessment can respond positively to the daunting but uneven capabilities of these new technologies.
How genAI is transforming professional services
The world of work that students face after graduation is also being transformed. While it is unclear how much of the current slowdown in graduate recruitment can be attributed to current AI use, or uncertainty about its long-term impacts, it is likely that graduate careers will see great change as the technology develops. Surveys by McKinsey indicate that adoption of AI spread fastest between 2023/24 in media, communications, business, legal and professional services – the sectors with the highest proportions of graduates in their workforce (around 80 per cent in London and 60 per cent in the rest of the UK).
‘Human-centric’, a new report from the University of London looks at how AI is being adopted by professional service firms, and at what this might mean for the future shape and delivery of higher education.
The report identifies how AI is being adopted both through grassroots initiatives and corporate action. In some firms, genAI is still the preserve of ‘secret cyborgs’ – individual workers using chatbots under the radar. In others, task forces of younger workers have been deployed to find new uses for the tech to tackle chronic workflow problems or develop new services. Lawyers and accountants are codifying expertise into proprietary knowledge bases. These are private chatbots that minimise the risks of falsehood that still plague open systems, and offer potential to extend cheap professional-grade advice to many more people.
Graduate careers re-thought
What does this mean for graduate employment and skills? Many of the routine tasks frequently allocated to graduates can be automated through AI. This could be a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand, genAI may open up more varied and engaging ways for graduates to develop their skills, including the applied client-facing and problem-solving capabilities that underpin professional practice.
On the other hand, employers may question whether they need to employ as many graduates. Some of our interviewees talked of the potential for the ‘triangle’ structure of mass graduate recruitment being replaced by a ‘diamond-shaped’ refocus on mid-career hires. The obvious problem with this approach – of where mid-career hires will come from if there is no graduate recruitment – means that graduate recruitment is unlikely to dry up in the short term, but graduate careers may look very different as the knowledge economy is transformed.
The agile university in an age of career turbulence
This will have an impact on universities as well as employers. AI literacy, and the ability to use AI responsibly and authentically, are likely to become baseline expectations – suggesting that this should be core to university teaching and learning. Intriguingly, this is less about traditional computing skills and more about setting AI in context: research shows that software engineers were less in demand in early 2025 than AI ethicists and compliance specialists.
Broader ‘soft’ skills (what a previous University of London / Demos report called GRASP skills – general, relational, analytic, social and personal) will remain in demand, particularly as critical judgement, empathy and the ability to work as a team remain human-centric specialities. Employers also said that, while deep domain knowledge was still needed to assess and interrogate AI outputs, they were also looking for employees with a broader understanding of issues such as cybersecurity, climate regulation and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), who could work across diverse disciplines and perspectives to create new knowledge and applications.
The shape of higher education may also need to change. Given the speed of advances in AI, it is likely that most propositions about which skills will be needed in the future may quickly become outdated (including this one). This will call for a more responsive and agile system, which can experiment with new course content and innovative teaching methods, while sustaining the rigour that underpins the value of their degrees and other qualifications.
As the Lifelong Learning Entitlement is implemented, the relationship between students and universities may also need to become more long-term, rather than an intense three-year affair. Exposure to the world of work will be important too, but this needs to be open to all, not just to those with contacts and social capital.
Longer term – beyond workplace skills?
In the longer term, all bets are off, or at least pretty risky. Public concerns (over everything from privacy, to corporate control, to disinformation, to environmental impact) and regulatory pressures may slow the adoption of AI. Or AI may so radically transform our world that workplace skills are no longer such a central concern. Previous predictions of technology unlocking a more leisured world have not been realised, but maybe this time it will be different. If so, universities will not just be preparing students for the workplace, but also helping students to prepare for, shape and flourish in a radically transformed world.
The rapid adoption and development of AI has rocked higher education and thrown into doubt many students’ career plans and as many professors’ lesson plans. The best and only response is for students to develop capabilities that can never be authentically replicated by AI because they are uniquely human. Only humans have flesh and blood bodies. And these bodies are implicated in a wide range of Uniquely Human Capacities (UHCs), such as intuition, ethics, compassion, and storytelling. Students and educators should reallocate time and resources from AI-replaceable technical skills like coding and calculating to developing UHCs and AI skills.
Adoption of AI by employers is increasing while expectations for AI-savvy job candidates are rising. College students are getting nervous. 51% are second guessing their career choice and 39% worry that their job could be replaced by AI, according to Cengage Group’s 2024 Graduate Employability Report. Recently, I heard a student at an on-campus Literacy AI event ask an OpenAI representative if she should drop her efforts to be a web designer. (The representative’s response: spend less time learning the nuts and bolts of coding, and more time learning how to interpret and translate client goals into design plans.)
At the same time, AI capabilities are improving quickly. Recent frontier models have added “deep research” (web search and retrieval) and “reasoning” (multi-step thinking) capabilities. Both produce better, more comprehensive, accurate and thoughtful results, performing broader searches and developing responses step-by-step. Leading models are beginning to offer agentic features, which can do work for us, such as coding, independently. American AI companies are investing hundreds of billions in a race to develop Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This is a poorly defined state of the technology where AI can perform at least as well as humans in virtually any economically valuable cognitive task. It can act autonomously, learn, plan, and adapt, and interact with the world in a general flexible way, much as humans do. Some experts suggest we may reach this point by 2030, although others have a longer timeline.
Hard skills that may be among the first to be replaced are those that AI can do better, cheaper, and faster. As a general-purpose tool, AI can already perform basic coding, data analysis, administrative, routine bookkeeping and accounting, and illustration tasks that previously required specialized tools and experience. I have my own mind-blowing “vibe-coding” experience, creating custom apps with limited syntactical coding understanding. AIs are capable of quantitative, statistical, and textual analysis that might have required Excel or R in the past. According to Deloitte, AI initiatives are touching virtually every aspect of a companies’ business, affecting IT, operations, marketing the most. AI can create presentations driven by natural language that make manual PowerPoint drafting skills less essential.
Humans’ Future-Proof Strategy
How should students, faculty and staff respond to the breathtaking pace of change and profound uncertainties about the future of labor markets? The OpenAI representative was right: reallocation of time and resources from easily automatable skills to those that only humans with bodies can do. Let us spend less time teaching and learning skills that are likely to be automated soon.
Technical Skills OUT
Uniquely Human Capacities IN
Basic coding
Mindfulness, empathy, and compassion
Data entry and bookkeeping
Ethical judgment, meaning making, and critical thinking
Mastery of single-purpose software (e.g., PowerPoint, Excel, accounting apps)
Authentic and ethical use of generative and other kinds of AI to augment UHCs
Instead, students (and everyone) should focus on developing Uniquely Human Capacities (UHCs). These are abilities that only humans can authentically perform because they need a human body. For example, intuition is our inarticulable and immediate knowledge that we know somatically, in our gut. It is how we empathize, show compassion, evaluate morality, listen and speak, love, appreciate and create beauty, play, collaborate, tell stories, find inspiration and insight, engage our curiosity, and emote. It is how we engage with the deep questions of life and ask the really important questions.
According to Gholdy Muhammad in Unearthing Joy, a reduced emphasis on skills can improve equity by creating space to focus on students’ individual needs. She argues that standards and pedagogies need to also reflect “identity, intellectualism, criticality, and joy.” These four dimensions help “contextualize skills and give students ways to connect them to the real world and their lives.”
The National Association of Colleges and Employers has created a list of eight career readiness competencies that employers say are necessary for career success. Take a look at the list below and you will see that seven of the eight are UHCs. The eighth, technology, underlines the need for students and their educators to understand and use AI effectively and authentically.
For example, an entry-level finance employee who has developed their UHCs will be able to nimbly respond to changing market conditions, interpret the intentions of managers and clients, and translate these into effective analysis and creative solutions. They will use AI tools to augment their work, adding greater value with less training and oversight.
Widen Humans’ Comparative Advantage
As demonstrated in the example above, our UHCs are humans’ unfair advantage over AI. How do we develop them, ensuring the employability and self-actualization of students and all humans?
The foundation is mindfulness. Mindfulness is about being fully present with ourselves and others, and accepting, primarily via bodily sensations, without judgment and preference. It allows us to accurately perceive reality, including our natural intuitive connection with other humans, a connection AI cannot share. Mindfulness can be developed during and beyond meditation, moments of stillness devoted to mindfulness. Mindfulness practice has been shown to improve self-knowledge, set career goals, and improve creativity.
Mindfulness supports intuitive thinking and metacognition, our ability to think clearly about thinking. Non-conceptual thinking, using our whole bodies, entails developing our intuition and a growth mindset. The latter is about recognizing that we are all works in progress, where learning is the product of careful risk-taking, learning from errors, supported by other humans.
These practices support deep, honest, authentic engagement with other humans of all types. (These are not available over social media.) For students, this is about engaging with each other in class, study groups, clubs, and elsewhere on campus, as well as engaging with faculty in class and office hours. Such engagement with humans can feel unfamiliar and awkward as we emerge from a pandemic. However, these interactions are a critical way to practice and improve our UHCs.
Literature and cinema are ways to engage with and develop empathy and understanding of humans you do not know, may not even be alive or even exist at all. Fiction is maybe the only way to experience in the first person what a stranger is thinking and feeling.
Indeed, every interaction with the world is an opportunity to practice those Uniquely Human Capacities (UHCs):
Use your imagination and creativity to solve a math problem.
Format your spreadsheet or presentation or essay so that it is beautiful.
Get in touch with the feelings that arise when faced with a challenging task.
Many students tell me they are in college to better support and care for family. As you do the work, let yourself experience as an act of love for them.
AI Can Help Us Be Better Humans
AI usage can dull our UHCs or sharpen them. Use AI to challenge us to improve our work, not to provide short cuts that make our work average, boring, or worse. Ethan Mollick (2024) describes the familiar roles AIs can profitably play in our lives. Chief among these is as a patient, always available, if sometimes unreliable tutor. A tutor will give us helpful and critical feedback and hints but never the answers. A tutor will not do our work for us. A tutor will suggest alternative strategies and we can instruct them to nudge us to check on our emotions, physical sensations and moral dimensions of our work. When we prompt AI for help, we should explicitly give it the role of a tutor or editor (as I did with Claude for this article).
How do we assess whether we and our students are developing their UHCs? We can develop personal and work portfolios that tell the stories of connections, insights, and benefits to society we have made. We can get honest testimonials of trusted human partners and engage in critical yet self-compassionate introspection, and journalling. Deliberate practice with feedback in real life and role-playing scenarios can all be valuable. One thing that will not work as well: traditional grades and quantitative measures. After all, humanity cannot be measured.
In a future where AI or AGI assumes the more rote and mechanical aspects of work, we humans are freed to build their UHCs, to become more fully human. An optimistic scenario!
What Could Go Wrong?
The huge, profit-seeking transnational corporations that control AI may soon feel greater pressure to show a return on enormous investment to investors. This could cause costs for users to go up, widening the capabilities gap between those with means and the rest. It could also result in Balkanized AI, where each model is embedded with political, social, and other biases that appeal to different demographics. We see this beginning with Claude, prioritizing safety, and Grok, built to emphasize free expression.
In addition, AI could get good enough at faking empathy, morality, intuition, sense making, and other UHCs. In a competitive, winner-take-all economy with even less government regulation and leakier safety net, companies may aggressively reduce hiring at entry level and of (expensive) high performers. Many of the job functions of the former can be most easily replaced by AI. Mid-level professionals can use AI to perform at a higher level.
Finally, and this is not an exhaustive list: Students and all of us may succumb to the temptation of using AI short cut their work, slowing or reversing development of critical thinking, analytical skills, and subject matter expertise. The tech industry has perfected, over twenty years, the science of making our devices virtually impossible to put down, so that we are “hooked.”
Keeping Humans First
The best way to reduce the risks posed by AI-driven change is to develop our students’ Uniquely Human Capacities while actively engaging policymakers and administrators to ensure a just transition. This enhances the unique value of flesh-and-blood humans in the workforce and society. Educators across disciplines should identify lower value-added activities vulnerable to automation and reorient curricula toward nurturing UHCs. This will foster not only employability but also personal growth, meaningful connection, and equity.
Even in the most challenging scenarios, we are unlikely to regret investing in our humanity. Beyond being well-employed, what could be more rewarding than becoming more fully actualized, compassionate, and connected beings? By developing our intuitions, morality, and bonds with others and the natural world, we open lifelong pathways to growth, fulfillment, and purpose. In doing so, we build lives and communities resilient to change, rich in meaning, and true to what it means to be human.
The article represents my opinions only, not necessarily those of the Borough of Manhattan Community College or CUNY.
Brett Whysel is a lecturer in finance and decision-making at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY, where he integrates mindfulness, behavioral science, generative AI, and career readiness into his teaching. He has written for Faculty Focus, Forbes, and The Decision Lab. He is also the co-founder of Decision Fish LLC, where he develops tools to support financial wellness and housing counselors. He regularly presents on mindfulness and metacognition in the classroom and is the author of the Effortless Mindfulness Toolkit, an open resource for educators published on CUNY Academic Works. Prior to teaching, he spent nearly 30 years in investment banking. He holds an M.A. in Philosophy from Columbia University and a B.S. in Managerial Economics and French from Carnegie Mellon University.
Not because parents don’t matter – they do. In fact, my wife, a primary school teacher, often talks about how parental engagement is one of the strongest predictors of a child’s development. So, when I hear that parents are stepping up to help their children navigate the world of work, that’s no bad thing.
But with more graduates returning to the parental home after university, we need fresh policy approaches to support their early careers and ensure talent isn’t lost from regional economies.
Place-based
Regional graduate schemes offer a promising solution. Initiatives like those in West Yorkshire and Sheffield connect skilled graduates with local SMEs, which often struggle to compete with larger employers for talent. These schemes create new pathways for graduates to stay and thrive in the regions where they studied or grew up, while helping employers fill critical skills gaps. Crucially, they also act as a focal point for collaboration between local authorities, businesses, and training providers (including universities) to drive inclusive regional growth.
Expanding these kinds of initiatives also helps signal to policy makers that higher education has a key role to play in the skills discussion, which too often gets overlooked, leading to fragmented policy making. The formation of Skills England has the potential to address this, provided they properly recognise the contribution of higher education.
University careers services hold a huge reservoir of expertise in supporting graduate transitions. With the right backing, they could play a much greater role in driving regional employability initiatives. The potential is there; it just needs the support and opportunity to be fully unlocked.
Worth it
Part of the solution is for the sector to get better at articulating impact, so we can challenge the lazy characterisations you sometimes see in the media about degrees not being worth it, despite much evidence to the contrary.
What’s perhaps less widely understood is just how far university careers services have come in recent years. They’ve shifted from being a niche student support team at the edge of campus life to playing a central role in institutional strategy. In an era where graduate outcomes are a key metric for regulators, rankings, and reputation, careers services have massively upped their game.
Most universities now offer at least two years of careers support after graduation, and lifetime access is rapidly becoming the norm (our latest sector benchmarking report based on responses from 112 Heads of Careers found 41 per cen of careers services now offer lifetime support to alumni). But how many graduates know this? And more importantly, how many are using it? The support is there – from trained, experienced professionals – but we need to do a better job of shouting about it.
Practicality
And careers services today are doing far more than CV checks and advice appointments. They’re innovating to meet students’ real-world needs. Nottingham Trent University, for example, have set up a Professional Student Wardrobe, helping level the playing field by providing smart clothes for interviews and professional workplaces. And most institutions are also experimenting with AI-powered tools to increase efficiency and scale up support.
Innovative practices are also coming out of Kingston University, which runs simulated assessment centres for all second years to help them understand their skills and get the chance to experience graduate recruitment processes before hitting the real thing after graduation. This initiative has been welcomed by employers and Kingston University recently picked up two accolades at the Institute of Student Employers Awards as a result.
Careers services do a fantastic job of providing tailored support for individual students, but scaling impact is no small feat when the average staff-to-student ratio in careers services is around 1:1,080. However, careers services have found one of the best ways of scaling impact across the institution is to proactively work with academics to embed employability in the curriculum. I like to think of it as yeast in a loaf of bread – invisible, but transformative.
Cause for celebration
We need to get better at celebrating the work of careers services because they’re not just a nice extra; they’re fundamental to helping students succeed and universities thrive. Working at AGCAS, we benefit from seeing the global picture, and it’s clear that institutions in the UK and Ireland really are world leading when it comes to employability. It’s time to recognise that, champion it, and make sure careers teams get the visibility and support they need to keep making such a difference. As a first step, we should all work to increase visibility of careers services to parents, so they can better signpost the support that is available.
The inaugural Academic Employability Awards are a sign that the tide is turning. We’re seeing deeper collaboration between careers teams and academic departments, embedding employability into course design, assessment, and pedagogy.
So, is it parents or careers services that help graduates find jobs? Well, it’s both.
Parents know their child better than anyone and may be able to offer networks, but there’s also a huge amount that careers and employability teams do that really moves the dial for students and graduates.
How students use AI tools to improve their chances of landing a job has been central to the debate around AI and career advice and guidance. But there has been little discussion about AI’s impact on students’ decision making about which jobs and sectors they might enter.
Jisc has recently published two studies that shine light on this area. Prospects at Jisc’s Early Careers Survey is an annual report that charts the career aspirations and experiences of more than 4,000 students and graduates over the previous 12 months. For the first time, the survey’s dominant theme was the normalisation of the use of AI tools and the influence that discourse around AI is having on career decision making. And the impact of AI on employability was also a major concern of Jisc’s Student Perceptions of AI Report 2025, based on in-depth discussions with over 170 students across FE and HE.
Nerves jangling
The rapid advancements in AI raise concerns about its long-term impact, the jobs it might affect, and the skills needed to compete in a jobs market shaped by AI. These uncertainties can leave students and graduates feeling anxious and unsure about their future career prospects.
Important career decisions are already being made based on perceptions of how AI may change work. The Early Careers Survey found that one in ten students had already changed their career path because of AI.
Plans were mainly altered because students feared that their chosen career was at risk of automation, anticipating fewer roles in certain areas and some jobs becoming phased out entirely. Areas such as coding, graphic design, legal, data science, film and art were frequently mentioned, with creative jobs seen as more likely to become obsolete.
However, it is important not to carried away on a wave of pessimism. Respondents were also pivoting to future-proof their careers. Many students see huge potential in AI, opting for careers that make use of the new technology or those that AI has helped create.
But whether students see AI as an opportunity or a threat, the role of university careers and employability teams is the same in both cases. How do we support students in making informed decisions that are right for them?
From static to electricity
In today’s AI-driven landscape, careers services must evolve to meet a new kind of uncertainty. Unlike previous transitions, students now face automation anxiety, career paralysis, and fears of job displacement. This demands a shift away from static, one-size-fits-all advice toward more personalised, future-focused guidance.
What’s different is the speed and complexity of change. Students are not only reacting to perceived risks but also actively exploring AI-enhanced roles. Careers practitioners should respond by embedding AI literacy, encouraging critical evaluation of AI-generated advice, and collaborating with employers to help students understand the evolving world of work.
Equity must remain central. Not all students have equal access to digital tools or confidence in using them. Guidance must be inclusive, accessible, and responsive to diverse needs and aspirations.
Calls to action should involve supporting students in developing adaptability, digital fluency, and human-centred skills like creativity and communication. Promote exploration over avoidance, and values-based decision-making over fear, helping students align career choices with what matters most to them.
Ultimately, careers professionals are not here to predict the future, but to empower all students and early career professionals to shape it with confidence, curiosity, and resilience.
On the balance beam
This isn’t the first time that university employability teams have had to support students through change, anxiety, uncertainty or even decision paralysis when it comes to career planning, but the driver is certainly new. Through this uncertainty and transition, students and graduates need guidance from everyone who supports them, in education and the workplace.
Collaborating with industry leaders and employers is key to ensuring students understand the AI-enhanced labour market, the way work is changing and that relevant skills are developed. Embedding AI literacy in the curriculum helps students develop familiarity and understand the opportunities as well as limitations. Jisc has launched an AI Literacy Curriculum for Teaching and Learning Staff to support this process.
And promoting a balanced approach to career research and planning is important. The Early Careers Survey found almost a fifth of respondents are using generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot as a source of careers advice, and the majority (84 per cent) found them helpful.
While careers and employability staff welcome the greater reach and impact AI enables, particularly in challenging times for the HE sector, colleagues at an AGCAS event were clear to emphasise the continued necessity for human connection, describing AI as “augmenting our service, not replacing it.”
We need to ensure that students understand how to use AI tools effectively, spot when the information provided is outdated or incorrect, and combine them with other resources to ensure they get a balanced and fully rounded picture.
Face-to-face interaction – with educators, employers and careers professionals – provides context and personalised feedback and discussion. A focus on developing essential human skills such as creativity, critical thinking and communication remains central to learning. After all, AI doesn’t just stand for artificial intelligence. It also means authentic interaction, the foundation upon which the employability experience is built.
Guiding students through AI-driven change requires balanced, informed career planning. Careers services should embed AI literacy, collaborate with employers, and increase face-to-face support that builds human skills like creativity and communication. Less emphasis should be placed on one-size-fits-all advice and static labour market forecasting. Instead, the focus should be on active, student-centred approaches. Authentic interaction remains key to helping students navigate uncertainty with confidence and clarity.
In the platform-dominated economy, Indeed.com has established itself as the central marketplace for jobseekers and employers alike, boasting tens of millions of listings across industries and geographies. But behind its user-friendly design lies a powerful, opaque system that reinforces labor precarity, exploits the desperation of the underemployed, and facilitates fraud and exploitation—including through job scams designed to funnel people into for-profit colleges and dubious training schemes.
Indeed’s rise is emblematic of a larger pattern in the U.S. political economy, where platforms extract profit from human need—especially from the millions of Americans struggling to find secure employment in a shrinking labor market. While claiming to connect jobseekers with opportunity, Indeed increasingly operates as a gatekeeper and a filter, favoring employers with the ability to pay for prominence, and quietly profiting from a user base navigating worsening inequality.
From Opportunity to Exploitation: The Platform Economy
Indeed’s near-monopoly over online job listings positions it as the Amazon of employment—a central aggregator of job ads, resume submissions, employer reviews, and workforce data. Its business model is rooted in ad-based revenue: companies pay to boost job visibility, while jobseekers receive a flood of suggested listings—many of which are irrelevant, low-quality, or outright deceptive.
One particularly disturbing trend: a growing number of “job postings” on Indeed are not job offers at all, but veiled advertisements for for-profit colleges and unaccredited training programs. These listings typically appear legitimate, bearing the titles of medical assistant, phlebotomist, cybersecurity technician, or paralegal. But once an applicant shows interest, they are quickly routed to admissions representatives, not employers. In short, they’ve fallen for a bait-and-switch scheme.
Indeed does little to prevent these tactics. Despite flagging mechanisms and user complaints, scammers and aggressive recruiters return repeatedly under new listings or shell company names. And because these advertisers pay to promote their listings, there is a built-in conflict of interest: Indeed profits from ads designed to exploit vulnerable jobseekers, many of whom are already burdened by unemployment, underemployment, or student debt.
The Job Training Charade: A National Problem
As labor economist Gordon Lafer argues in The Job Training Charade, job training programs have long functioned as a public relations tool for elected officials, who promise “skills-based solutions” rather than structural labor reform. Publicly funded retraining programs and for-profit career schools capitalize on this narrative, convincing jobseekers that their struggles stem from a personal “skills gap” rather than systemic inequality.
Indeed’s platform reinforces this logic by flooding users with listings that promote training and certification programs as prerequisites for jobs that often don’t exist or pay poorly. Even in legitimate industries—like healthcare and IT—the overabundance of credential inflation and unnecessary gatekeeping leads to further debt accumulation without guaranteeing meaningful work.
As Lafer writes, “Training has become a substitute for economic policy—a way of appearing to do something without actually improving people’s lives.” And Indeed is a willing partner in this substitution, profiting from a constant churn of dislocated workers trying to retool their résumés and lives to meet an ever-shifting set of employer demands.
The Educated Underclass and Platform Paternalism
Gary Roth, in The Educated Underclass, identifies another critical aspect of this ecosystem: the overproduction of college graduates relative to the needs of the labor market. As more people earn degrees, the wage premium diminishes, and once-secure professions become crowded with overqualified applicants chasing scarce opportunities.
Indeed’s platform becomes the proving ground for this underclass: college-educated workers competing for service jobs, temp contracts, or entry-level roles barely above minimum wage. Meanwhile, the site’s tools—resume scores, AI-based job match algorithms, and automated rejection letters—reinforce the idea that unemployment is a personal failure rather than a structural outcome.
This is platform paternalism at its worst. Jobseekers are “nudged” into applying for low-quality work, “encouraged” to pursue unnecessary training, and surveilled through behavioral data that is packaged and sold to employers and third-party marketers. Career development becomes not a public good but a private product—sold back to workers in pieces, with no guarantee of outcome.
Job Scams and Regulatory Blind Spots
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general have received thousands of complaints about online job scams—including fake recruiters, phony employers, and misleading school advertisements. Yet enforcement remains weak, and platforms like Indeed enjoy limited legal liability, protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for user-generated content.
Even when caught, fraudulent advertisers often reappear. As one whistleblower told The Higher Education Inquirer, “We’d flag scam listings, and two days later they’d pop back up under a new name. It was like a game of whack-a-mole—and no one at the top cared.”
Indeed’s user agreement explicitly disclaims responsibility for the authenticity of job listings. And although the company has instituted basic verification and reporting tools, they are inadequate to stem the tide of predatory postings, especially those tied to the multibillion-dollar for-profit education industry.
A Broken System Masquerading as Innovation
The consolidation of online job markets under platforms like Indeed represents a profound shift in the political economy of labor. No longer mediated by public institutions or strong unions, the search for work is now a privatized experience, managed by algorithms, monetized through ads, and vulnerable to deception.
To be clear: Indeed does not create jobs. It creates the illusion of access. It obscures labor precarity behind UX design and paid listings. It enables fraudulent training pipelines while pushing the burden of risk and cost onto workers. And it profits from the widening chasm between what higher education promises and what the economy delivers.
At The Higher Education Inquirer, we demand accountability—not just from institutions of higher learning but from the platforms that now mediate our futures. The illusion must be pierced, and jobseeking must be reclaimed as a public function, free from predation, profiteering, and platform capture.
Sources:
Lafer, Gordon. The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press, 2002.
Roth, Gary. The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press, 2019.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). “Job Scams: What You Need to Know.” 2024.
Recruit Holdings. Annual Reports and Investor Presentations, 2020–2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. “Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements.” 2023.
Brody, Leslie. “Students Lured Into For-Profit Colleges Through Fake Job Ads.” Wall Street Journal, 2022.
Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019.
Glassdoor, Indeed, and CareerBuilder community complaint forums (2021–2025).
On a recent Thursday morning, Michael Taubman asked his class of seniors at North Star Academy’s Washington Park High School: “What do you think AI’s role should be in your future career?”
“In school, like how we use AI as a tool and we don’t use it to cheat on our work … that’s how it should be, like an assistant,” said Amirah Falana, a 17-year-old interested in a career in real estate law.
Fernando Infante, an aspiring software developer, agreed that AI should be a tool to “provide suggestions” and inform the work.
“It’s like having AI as a partner rather than it doing the work,” said Infante during class.
Falana and Infante are students in Taubman’s class called The Summit, a yearlong program offered to 93 seniors this year and expanding to juniors next year that also includes a 10-week AI course developed by Taubman and Stanford University.
As part of the course, students use artificial intelligence tools – often viewed in a negative light due to privacy and other technical concerns – to explore their career interests and better understand how technology could shape the workforce. The class is also timely, as 92% of companies plan to invest in more AI over the next three years, according to a report by global consulting firm McKinsey and Company.
The lessons provide students with hands-on exercises to better understand how AI works and how they can use it in their daily lives. They are also designed so teachers across subject areas can include them as part of their courses and help high school students earn a Google Career Certificate for AI Essentials, which introduces AI and teaches the basics of using AI tools.
Students like Infante have used the AI and coding skills they learned in class to create their own apps while others have used them to create school surveys and spark new thoughts about their future careers. Taubman says the goal is to also give students agency over AI so they can embrace technological changes and remain competitive in the workfield.
“One of the key things for young people right now is to make sure they understand that this technology is not inevitable,” Taubman told Chalkbeat last month. “People made this, people are making decisions about it, and there are pros and cons like with everything people make and we should be talking about this.”
Students need to know the basics of AI, experts say
As Generation Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, graduate high school and enter a workforce where AI is new, many are wondering how the technology will be used and to what extent.
Nearly half of Gen Z students polled by The Walton Family Foundation and Gallup said they use AI weekly, according to the newly released survey exploring how youth view AI. (The Walton Family Foundation is a supporter of Chalkbeat. See our funders list here.) The same poll found that over 4 in 10 Gen Z students believe they will need to know AI in their future careers, and over half believe schools should be required to teach them how to use it.
This school year, Newark Public Schools students began using Khan Academy’s AI chatbot tutor called Khanmigo, which the district launched as a pilot program last year. Some Newark teachers reported that the tutoring tool was helpful in the classroom, but the district has not released data on whether it helped raise student performance and test scores. The district in 2024 also launched its multimillion project to install AI cameras across school buildings in an attempt to keep students safe.
But more than just using AI in school, students want to feel prepared to use it after graduating high school. Nearly 3 in 4 college students said their colleges or universities should be preparing them for AI in the workplace, according to a survey from Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse’s Student Voice series.
Many of the challenges of using AI in education center on the type of learning approach used, accuracy, and building trust with the technology, said Nhon Ma, CEO of Numerade – an online learning assistant that uses AI and educators to help students learn STEM concepts. But that’s why it’s important to immerse students in AI to help them understand the ways it could be used and when to spot issues, Ma added.
“We want to prepare our youth for this competitive world stage, especially on the technological front so they can build their own competence and confidence in their future paths. That could potentially lead towards higher earnings for them too,” Ma said.
For Infante, the senior in Taubman’s class, AI has helped spark a love for computer science and deepened his understanding of coding. He used it to create an app that tracks personal milestones and goals and awards users with badges once they reach them. As an aspiring software developer, he feels he has an advantage over other students because he’s learning about AI in high school.
Taubman also says it’s especially important for students to understand how quickly the technology is advancing, especially for students like Infante looking towards a career in technology.
“I think it’s really important to help young people grapple with how this is new, but unlike other big new things, the pace is very fast, and the implications for career are almost immediate in a lot of cases,” Taubman added.
Students learn that human emotions are important as AI grows
It’s also important to remember the limitations of AI, Taubman said, noting that students need the basic understanding of how AI works in order to question it, identify any mistakes, and use it accordingly in their careers.
“I don’t want students to lose out on an internship or job because someone else knows how to use AI better than they do, but what I really want is for students to get the internship or the job because they’re skillful with AI,” Taubman said.
Through Taubman’s class, students are also identifying how AI increases the demand for skills that require human emotion, such as empathy and ethics.
Daniel Akinyele, a 17-year-old senior, said he was interested in a career in industrial and organizational psychology, which focuses on human behavior in the workplace.
During Taubman’s class, he used a custom AI tool on his laptop to explore different scenarios where he could use AI in his career. Many involved talking to someone about their feelings or listening to vocal cues that might indicate a person is sad or angry. Ultimately, psychology is a career about human connection and “that’s where I come into play,” Akinyele said.
“I’m human, so I would understand how people are feeling, like the emotion that AI doesn’t see in people’s faces, I would see it and understand it,” Akinyele added.
Falana, the aspiring real estate attorney, also used the custom AI tool to consider how much she should rely on AI when writing legal documents. Similar to writing essays in schools, Falana said professionals should use their original writing in their work but AI could serve as a launching pad.
“I feel like the legal field should definitely put regulations on AI use, like we shouldn’t be able to, draw up our entire case using AI,” Falana said.
During Taubman’s class, students also discussed fake images and videos created by AI. Infante, who wants to be a software developer, added that he plans to use AI regularly on the job but believes it should also be regulated to limit disinformation online.
Taubman says it’s important for students to have a healthy level of skepticism when it comes to new technologies. He encourages students to think about how AI generates images, the larger questions around copyright infringement, and their training processes.
“We really want them to feel like they have agency in this world, both their capacity to use these systems,” Taubman said, “but also to ask these broader questions about how they were designed.”
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
