How Leading Universities Are Building The Future Of AI
According to Inside Higher Ed's 2025 Survey of Campus Chief Technology/Information Officers, just 9% of college and university tech leaders feel their institutions are ready for AI. While many are still figuring out their next steps, a handful of universities are rethinking how AI can reshape instruction, research, and day-to-day campus operations from the ground up. Their experiences offer practical models for colleges and universities still formulating their AI strategies.
Stanford's approach to AI implementation stands out for its emphasis on balancing innovation with responsibility. In early 2025, the university's AI at Stanford Advisory Committee released a comprehensive framework specifically designed to address AI's role in three critical domains: administration, education, and research.
What makes Stanford's approach particularly instructive is its rejection of rigid policies that might hamper experimentation. As Committee Chair Russ Altman explained in the Stanford Report, "We wanted to first encourage experimentation in safe spaces to learn what it can do and how it might help us pursue our mission." This philosophy acknowledges that institutions must create environments where faculty and students can explore AI's potential while establishing guardrails to prevent misuse.
Rather than mandating university-wide rules about AI use in coursework, Stanford provides adaptable frameworks that professors can tailor to different disciplines and course contexts.
While many institutions focus primarily on administrative applications of AI, the University of Michigan has prioritized developing tools that directly enhance the student experience. Their MiMaizey AI assistant, released in beta in 2024, represents a thoughtful approach to student-facing AI implementation.
MiMaizey connects to Michigan's learning management system, allowing students to access course materials, clarify assignment dates, and generate study guides specific to their enrolled classes. The system draws intelligence from multiple information sources including Michigan News, the University Record, Michigan Daily, and campus event calendars to provide students with updated information about university life.
Through the tool, Michigan established clear feedback mechanisms, enabling students to help shape its ongoing development—a practice that builds both better technology and greater student buy-in. This student-centered approach demonstrates how AI can enhance students' educational experiences.
Emory University's AI.Humanity Initiative offers an exemplary model for how institutions can rapidly build AI capabilities through strategic faculty hiring and interdisciplinary collaboration. Rather than limiting AI development to computer science or IT departments, Emory has deliberately fostered cross-disciplinary connections.
Within a single year, Emory hired 19 AI-focused faculty across multiple schools and departments, creating critical mass for AI research and teaching. The university is systematically revising curricula to embed AI across disciplines, recognizing both student demand and workforce needs.
In addition, Emory collaborates with Georgia Tech through their AI.Humanity Seed Grant Program. This initiative provides $100,000 in funding to spur new research collaborations and expand existing partnerships that leverage artificial intelligence to improve society and the quality of human life. The program supports interdisciplinary projects that address ethical considerations, social justice, health disparities, and bias in AI data.
Its Center for AI Learning, which serves as a community hub for AI literacy and integration, has expanded to offer statewide educational initiatives in partnership with the Rowen Foundation and Georgia Chamber of Commerce.
The State University of New York demonstrates how large, multi-campus systems can implement coordinated AI strategies while allowing for local adaptation. SUNY's Responsible AI framework provides system-wide guidance while empowering individual campuses to develop specialized approaches.
SUNY emphasizes fairness by design, addressing potential biases in data and algorithms to prevent discriminatory outcomes. Their framework requires AI systems to provide understandable explanations of decision-making processes, implements robust security measures to protect sensitive information, and establishes governance structures that clearly define responsibilities for AI deployment.
As the nation's largest integrated public university system, SUNY is particularly well-positioned to demonstrate how AI can serve the public good—a priority they have explicitly built into their approach.
Based on these successful models, I have developed a roadmap for institutions seeking to accelerate their AI readiness. This framework synthesizes best practices from leading universities while remaining adaptable to different institutional contexts.
First, institutions should consider hiring for dedicated AI leadership positions with direct reporting lines to senior leadership. Stanford found, in its analysis of federal AI implementation, that the 'dual-hat' approach—where AI leadership is an add-on responsibility to existing roles such as Chief Information Officer or Chief Data Officer—often limits strategic development.
In addition, to assure representation across constituencies, institutions can develop formal governance structures with cross-functional committees representing faculty, administration, IT, legal counsel, and students. These groups meet regularly to develop policies, address emerging issues, and ensure alignment with institutional values. They also create explicit ethical guidelines for AI use across teaching, research, and operations, addressing issues including bias, transparency, privacy, and academic integrity.
Another important element to successful AI integration is data and security infrastructure. For example, the State University of New York (SUNY) system has developed a Responsible AI framework emphasizing data governance, fairness by design, and strong security protocols to ensure data quality and privacy across its campuses. Stanford University fosters 'sandboxed' environments that enable faculty and students to safely experiment with AI tools without exposing sensitive data, supporting innovation within controlled settings.
Student and faculty literacy also must be prioritized. Comprehensive AI literacy programs are offered at institutions like Case Western Reserve University and Ohio University, where faculty and staff participate in tiered workshops ranging from basic AI awareness to advanced applications, equipping the campus community with essential knowledge and skills.
Integrating AI into teaching and learning is the third critical element of successful AI adoption. Institutions should conduct systematic curriculum reviews that combine teaching technical AI skills with cultivating critical thinking about AI's societal and ethical implications across disciplines, as is present at Arizona State University. Collaborating with faculty to develop flexible, discipline-specific guidelines for AI use in coursework fosters innovation while safeguarding academic integrity. Targeted, integrated implementations prioritize clear educational objectives, employ rigorous assessment of outcomes, and scale proven approaches to maximize impact.
Cross-institutional collaboration completes the framework for effective AI integration. Leading universities actively form partnerships to share resources, expertise, and best practices. For instance, Emory University's collaboration with Georgia Tech through the AI.Humanity Seed Grant Program exemplifies how joint efforts can spur interdisciplinary research addressing societal challenges. Additionally, building strong relationships with AI companies and major employers helps align academic programs with evolving workforce demands, for examples, as Carnegie Mellon University has.
According to EDUCAUSE's 2025 AI Landscape study, most higher education institutions are still in the early stages of AI adoption and face the critical challenge of moving beyond experimentation toward strategic, institution-wide integration. Global organizations like the World Economic Forum and UNESCO emphasize the importance of embedding ethical, equitable, and human-centric principles into AI deployment in education. This transformation demands alignment with educational missions that prioritize human-centered values.
For higher education leaders, the question is no longer whether to embrace AI but how to do so in ways that advance their core missions while preparing students to thrive in an increasingly AI-infused world. The pioneering institutions featured here offer valuable roadmaps for that journey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
13 hours ago
- Engadget
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is bad for American EVs, but it could have been worse
President Trump's " Big Beautiful Bill " has squeaked through the Senate in time for this weekend's pyrotechnic celebrations. The bill festively shoots down a long list of environmental protection measures of all shapes and sizes, with the red glare of those rockets looking set to burn all current federal EV rebates in particular. While the exact timing is still in flux, as things stand the $7,500 federal rebate for electric vehicles would expire not in 2032 as originally specified, but as soon as the end of September. It's an abrupt, ignominious end to a series of incentives that, in some form or another, dates back to the George W. Bush administration. This change doesn't just cover new consumer vehicles, like the Kia EV9 or Volkswagen . It also eliminates the $4,000 federal credit on used EVs, and even stands to kill rebates for commercial vehicles of the sort that inspired a whole new and weird generation of electric vans like those from Rivian and Arrival (RIP). All those initiatives were meant to drive down the environmental impact of a transport industry that, combined, makes up 29 percent of total US greenhouse gas emissions . While that unfortunate environmental impact might not be immediately felt, for anyone considering buying an EV, some pain in the wallet is coming much sooner. But it could have been worse. Earlier versions of the bill imposed a $250 annual fee for EV owners, and a still-spiteful $100 for hybrid owners. That fee would go into effect regardless of when you bought your wheels, so even if you were doing the electric thing before it was cool , you'd have been stuck with a substantial annual premium. That fee was to be directed to the Highway Trust Fund, ostensibly ensuring that EV owners are paying their fair share for federal transportation infrastructure maintenance. The bulk of that funding comes from an 18.4 cents per-gallon tax on gasoline, which imprecisely ensures that drivers are paying roughly their fair share for highway use. This supposed attempt at EV equivalence, however, was structured in a wildly disproportionate way. The average American drives 11,318 miles per year, according to the Department of Energy, which works out to just under $100 annually in taxes on gasoline. That's less than half the proposed annual fee for EVs. Yes, electric cars and their heavy batteries do indeed wear out roads more quickly , but not to that degree. That felt more than a little unfair, but lawmakers faced an even bigger roadblock: They literally couldn't make such a fee structure work. "There is no mechanism today for the federal government to collect an annual fee," Ohio Republican Senator Bernie Moreno told Politico . Regardless of the reasoning, for now at least, this fee is no longer part of the bill. American EV sales haven't exactly been following the hockey stick growth that most industry experts had formerly been projecting. Still, it has been steadily trending upward. American EV sales in the first quarter of this year were up 10 percent, according to Cox Automotive , and that's despite Tesla's precipitous slide of late. Considering the average cost of a new car in the US is $48,799, and the average cost of a new EV is $57,734, that $7,500 federal EV tax credit clearly makes a substantial difference in bridging that gap. Assuming the Big Bill passes, that bridge will be demolished in just a few months time. While it's impossible to say how much the American EV market's growth has been driven by those incentives, we can look at the impact such cuts have had in other markets. Germany's Climate and Transformation Fund paid out €10 billion between 2016 and 2023, chipping in towards the purchase of 2.1 million EVs. EV sales declined in Germany by 16.4 percent through the first half of 2024 after that program ended. Meanwhile, elsewhere in Europe, EV sales continued to grow by nearly 10 percent. It's looking like it was only a temporary setback, though. In the first five months of this year, German EV registrations are up more than 40 percent . That, again, is despite Tesla's particularly steep decline there . As to which manufacturers will be most impacted, it stands to reason that buyers looking for with lower-priced EV offerings — cars from brands like Hyundai, Kia and Nissan — will take this change the hardest; buyers of premium brands — like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche — will be a little less dissuaded. Regardless, it should come as no surprise that not a single vehicle manufacturer is found in the list of endorsements for the "Big Beautiful Bill." You will, however, find a who's who of players in the petrochemical world, like the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Coterra. The bill won't just kill incentives for EV buyers or leasers. America's charging infrastructure is also set to take a hit thanks to the repeal of the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit. This covered up to 30 percent of the cost of EV charger installation, encouraging more businesses to put more chargers in more places. Deleting that credit certainly won't help the stubbornly slow buildout of America's charging infrastructure. Critics of the American federal credit program have long said that it was too frequently used by wealthy buyers to chip a little off the cost of their next luxury EV. That, at least, is being addressed in one of the bill's other transportation-related changes, something that could actually be a positive for many Americans. The bill includes a new tax deduction that could help modern shoppers saddled with debt after a car purchase. If passed, the bill would allow buyers with car or motorcycle loans to claim up to $10,000 in interest per year on their taxes. This applies to vehicles regardless of propulsion type, meaning EVs and hybrids qualify, but there are plenty of other criteria, including that the vehicle must be for personal use, cannot have a salvage title, and must have undergone final assembly in the United States. Beyond that, to claim the full deduction, individuals must have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of less than $150,000 if filing as an individual, or $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly. If you're a shopper who's been on the fence about buying an EV, it's safe to say that now would be a very good time to pull the trigger. And I do mean now. The federal rebate may carry through September, but extra dealer incentives will be drying up quicker than crocodile tears. If, on the other hand, you're a manufacturer of EVs, chances are there's not a lot you can do right now. The auto industry was not designed to react to the whims of our current presidential administration and the gasoline-loving special interests that fuel it. Hopefully, the success of your business wasn't tied to the continued existence of federal incentives — or, indeed, a lack of import tariffs . Going forward, American EV offerings will need to be one of two things: Priced on par with the internal combustion competition, or so fundamentally compelling that they're worth the extra cost. If your vehicles don't meet that criteria, come October you might have a problem.
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- Wall Street Journal
AI Researcher Christopher Manning Takes Leave From Stanford for AIX Ventures
Christopher Manning, one of the most cited researchers in the field of natural language processing and a former director of the Stanford AI Lab, has taken a leave of absence from Stanford University to work at venture firm AIX Ventures as a general partner. Manning, who has been with San Francisco-based AIX in a part-time investing role since 2021, will now devote himself more fully to investing and advising portfolio companies. AIX has backed startups including HuggingFace, Weights & Biases, and Perplexity.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
UC considers adopting semester system at all schools
Facing an unprecedented boom in enrollment nearly 60 years ago, the University of California switched its campuses from semesters to faster-paced quarters, aiming to make space for more students by packing the calendar with a greater number of shorter classes. The move was part of a national trend to join state campuses across the U.S. that were aligning with private universities, including Stanford, that had operated on quarters since World War I to accommodate students in military training programs. But today, quarters are largely a relic, with roughly 50 campuses nationwide using them — compared to nearly 150 in the mid-1990s — according to the National Center for Education Statistics. UC, one of the biggest holdouts — with only the Berkeley and Merced campuses on a semester calendar — is considering the switch. 'They've tried over and over to do this at different campuses,' said Dan Mitchell, a professor emeritus of the UCLA Anderson School of Management who arrived in Westwood in 1968 and stopped teaching three years ago. 'It would be big if they finally did.' Since last fall, a UC working group has studied the potential switch to semesters as well as hybrid options, calculating the possible effects on student success and financial costs to rearrange registration and class schedules. The group is expected to release its latest report this month and present the findings to the UC systemwide provost, Academic Senate chair and Academic Planning Council in the fall. 'Discussions about ways UC can improve its student experience and support postgraduate outcomes have raised questions about returning to a common calendar — semester or quarter — to facilitate systemwide collaboration and cohesion,' said the most recent report from the Academic Planning Council Workgroup on a Systemwide Academic Calendar. But change would be complicated. Campuses have different start and end dates, exam periods and breaks. Among the benefits of going all-semester: being able to provide comparable access across the nine undergraduate campuses to courses, summer jobs and internships. The potential move has been both hailed and critiqued by students and faculty. Having all campuses in sync would make sense for universities that all share a name, some say, adding that transfers would also become more seamless. Supporters say it's confusing that some campuses offer joint programs or professorships between departments, colleges and schools, when undergraduates are on quarters and some graduate schools follow semesters. The UCLA and UC Davis law schools, for example, follow semesters while those campuses overall use quarters. There is also the question of how a calendar change would affect student performance. A 2022 research paper published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy that looked at data from hundreds of higher education institutions found that making the switch hurts graduation rates in the short term and, for certain students, can lead to lower grades and a longer period before declaring a major. One of the biggest downsides is the cost. After factoring in changes or anticipating necessary programming in curriculum, advising, leadership, communication, operations support and information technology, it's estimated that switching to semesters would cost between $288 million and $371 million systemwide. A move by California State University to guide its last quarter-based campus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, to semesters by 2026 is estimated to cost $20 million. At a time when budgets are being trimmed, some contracts are not getting renewed and a systemwide hiring freeze is in place amid Trump administration cuts, some UC students and faculty say it's the wrong time to consider a change. Ryan Manriquez, who until recently was the president of the UC Graduate and Professional Council and served on UC's calendar working group, said he supported changing calendars in theory — but not any time soon. 'Right now, every single dollar the university has at its disposal should go back to student services and vital functions like research,' said Manriquez, who graduated this year from UC Berkeley with a master's in public policy. Tomris Karaismailoglu, who graduated in June from UC San Diego with a degree in interdisciplinary computing and the arts, said they felt the quarter system hurt them during internship and job applications. 'Most students elsewhere graduated when I was still in classes because semester schools end earlier, which meant those students had a head start on being able to start jobs,' Karaismailoglu said. 'I felt anxiety around that.' Yesenia Pérez, who received her undergraduate degree from UC Santa Barbara in June and will be studying at the campus in the fall for a master's in technology management, said she empathized with both sides. 'In a 10-week quarter, you go through content so quickly,' Pérez said. 'It's a double-edged sword. If you are passionate about the class, you get to learn more in a semester, but if you just want it to be over, then it's only 10 weeks.' Many faculty have voiced opposition, citing potential increases in workload, including redoing syllibi. 'The impacts of such a change — logistically, administratively, financially, on student learning outcomes and faculty/staff working conditions — are potentially massive,' the Council of UC Faculty Assns. wrote in a statement to its members this year. The organization called 'on all UC faculty to mobilize and demand the right to study, discuss and vote on this initiative.' But for Qingzu Yin, a professor in the Department of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Davis, the transition is long overdue. Yin said he hoped the initial costs of revamping the calendar would be offset by savings later on, such as having fewer university-wide registration periods. He believed the educational experience would also improve. 'If you open up any textbook in any subject area, there are hardly any books limited to only 10 chapters or less. It is typically 15-20 chapters,' Yin said in an email. 'So what instructors can do in a quarter system with the materials ... [is] cut the materials' or 'combine multiple chapters into one week. So the students will be left with either 'malnutrition,' or overdose of information in 10 weeks without much chance to digest fully.'
