Putting college on the fast track — from hechingerreport.org by Jon Marcus
As students grow impatient, colleges try three-year bachelor’s degrees

Some colleges and the accreditors and states that oversee them are adding and approving three-year bachelor’s degrees that require fewer credits than the traditional four-year kind.

Institutions facing enrollment declines hope the new three-year degrees will attract students unwilling to spend the usual amount of time and money that it takes to graduate. States need those graduates to fill jobs.

Nearly 60 universities and colleges are planning, considering or have already launched reduced-credit, three-year bachelor’s degrees in some disciplines. They’re calling them “applied” or “career-focused” bachelor’s degrees.

While earning bachelor’s degrees with fewer credits may appeal to some students, the idea is so new that there’s a key unanswered question: whether employers, graduate schools and licensing agencies will accept them. 

From DSC:
Given the often high price of obtaining a degree these days…whether it’s a 4-year program or a 3-year program, the key is whether a student can get a good job coming out of that program.  I think the required time doesn’t help as much as making the necessary changes to offer more responsive curricula, relevant programs, and real-world learning experiences (including apprenticeships and internships).  I appreciate the experiment to lower the overall costs, but like so many other “innovations,” it’s playing at the fringes. It’s really the same old, same old — just on a shorter time frame.

At current prices, families are FORCED to consider employment prospects. They are demanding a ROI, because they have to.

I was at a meeting earlier this year with other parents and family members who were interested in a particular program at a Michigan-based university. One set of parents really wanted to know if their student would be getting a good job coming out of the program. They didn’t want to take a second mortgage out if the investment wasn’t going to pay off.


Also see:

Here is the link to Chris Mayer’s posting on LinkedIn.

 

LinkedIn Grad’s Guide 2026: Starting your career in the AI era — from linkedin.com by Gianna Prudente
To help you head off in the right direction, we’ve identified where those starting their careers are finding opportunity, based on data from millions of LinkedIn member profiles.

While all of this is happening, colleges are still catching up. Many students are graduating without having spent much time learning how AI actually fits into day-to-day work — even as employers seek out those exact skills.

“Colleges are moving into an era of, we’ll let the faculty decide, which leads to a very uneven experience for students because some faculty are really into AI and other faculty are not,” says Jeff Selingo, a higher education strategist. “Employers are the same; they don’t really know how to act around early careers.”

Taken together, new grads are entering a uniquely challenging environment: fewer traditional entry points, slower turnover and a workplace that’s evolving faster than the systems preparing people for it.

.


I knew my writing students were using AI. Their confessions led to a powerful teaching moment — from theguardian.com by Micah Nathan
The problem wasn’t just the perfectly polished, yet mediocre prose. It’s what’s lost when we surrender the struggle to translate thought into words

For a few moments, all was quiet except the classroom’s ticking radiators. Then, a teary-eyed confession: one of the ostensible authors said she only used AI because she was scared of looking stupid, of being criticized for bad writing. She said she loved writing stories and hated having used AI. But she couldn’t stop herself, recounting a sequence similar to an addict’s descent: at first she fed her story into AI for a grammar check, it suggested line edits and she accepted, then it asked if she wanted structural edits, then it offered to rewrite the entire piece.

The other would-be author admitted he had never written a short story before and he had an idea but didn’t know where to start. I asked him why he didn’t reach out to me for help. He shrugged.

One of the other students raised her hand, saying she didn’t understand why it was bad for AI to write stories as long as the stories are based on their ideas. More students spoke: one wanted to know how using AI was any different from using a human editor. Another wanted me to answer why, at a university that launched one of the world’s first AI research programs in 1959, were we even having this debate? Isn’t AI meant to make everyone’s life easier? Less stressful? Isn’t the point of AI to free humans from the tedium of rote tasks?

The conversation that followed their confessions was one of the most productive teaching moments of my eight years at MIT. Writing, I told them, isn’t supposed to be easy, and of course it can be tedious but that doesn’t make it rote. Writing isn’t just the production of sentences – it’s the training of endurance by way of sustained attention. It’s a way of learning what one thinks by attempting to say it. 


This $10K AI School Promises to Future-Proof Your Career — from builtin.com by Matthew Urwin
Khan Academy, TED and ETS are starting a new program to equip students and professionals with the skills to thrive in an increasingly AI-driven economy. Here’s what you need to know.

Summary: The Khan TED Institute is a higher-education program that will teach students and workers how to use AI through interactive learning. The program’s AI-centric curriculum is an unproven approach, though, casting doubt on whether it will actually improve learning outcomes and career prospects.


 

Want Students to Build a Healthier Relationship With Technology? Start With The Arts — from techlearning.com by Adrianna Marshall
Arts classrooms demonstrate what technology integration at its best can look like

But at a moment defined by rapid AI adoption and ongoing debates about screen time, the argument for protecting and investing in arts education needs to take on a new tone. The arts continue to be one of the most effective places in school for students to build healthier, more intentional relationships with technology.

In short, in the age of AI, we need the arts more than ever.

Digital composition software, notation tools, and recording platforms allow students to experiment, revise, and refine their ideas in ways that would have been far more time-consuming a decade ago. Students can layer tracks, hear immediate playback, annotate their own scores, and collaborate across devices. The same is true in other contexts besides music; in visual arts, for instance, a variety of digital drawing and painting platforms enable students to practice with new mediums, styles, and techniques without having to worry about supplies or messes. But in either case, the core intellectual work of looking and listening critically, understanding structure, and making aesthetic choices remains entirely human and part of the learning.


From DSC:
I agree. At one of my previous positions, I spent 10 years supervising a digital studio — helping professors and students use a variety of applications to create things. The applications were from Adobe, Apple, and a variety of smaller vendors. The deliverables could be graphics, edited soundtracks, music, videos, flyers, posters, collages, edited photographs, presentations, websites, and more. I longed for people to discover the power of multimedia to communicate their messages, tell stories, stir emotion, powerfully engage themselves (and others), and unleash their creativity.

There were several obstacles to our digital studio being more impactful at that institution. It was under the IT department, not the academic side of the house. It was in the basement of the library, where few students and faculty traveled. During those years, it was highly uncommon for faculty members to require multimedia-based assignments — so many students had to WANT to develop these skills on their own time. The majority of students didn’t see the value in developing the types of digital skills that we were trying to build…or they didn’t have the time.


Also relevant/see:


 

This $10K AI School Promises to Future-Proof Your Career — from builtin.com by Matthew Urwin
Khan Academy, TED and ETS are starting a new program to equip students and professionals with the skills to thrive in an increasingly AI-driven economy. Here’s what you need to know.

Summary: The Khan TED Institute is a higher-education program that will teach students and workers how to use AI through interactive learning. The program’s AI-centric curriculum is an unproven approach, though, casting doubt on whether it will actually improve learning outcomes and career prospects.

Higher education might be on the verge of a radical overhaul to bring it up to speed in the age of artificial intelligence. At the TED2026 conference, Khan Academy, TED and ETS announced that they’re partnering to establish the Khan TED Institute — a new program that reorients the college curriculum around AI. By joining forces, the education technology trio aims to develop an alternative to traditional universities that better tracks student progress, teaches more relevant skills and provides a more personalized learning experience.

Accessibility is another major tenet of the Khan TED Institute. Its virtual nature allows anyone with an internet connection to participate in the program and makes it easier for students to move at their preferred pace. And because its curriculum prioritizes competency over course credits, advanced learners can complete the program in a shorter period. Time isn’t the only thing students can save on, either: The Institute promises a bachelor’s degree for less than $10,000, offering a much more affordable alternative to the typical four-year degree. 


 

From DSC:
Faculty senates don’t do well with this pace of change. But to their credit, few organizations can begin to deal with this pace of change.

 

When anyone can build a course, the real job is deciding which ones shouldn’t exist — from drphilippahardman.substack.com by Dr. Philippa Hardman
Why deciding is the only L&D skill AI can’t replace.

The biggest AI risk that L&D faces isn’t that it gets left behind: it’s that we build more — and flood the organisation with meh-quality content nobody needed in the first place.

In this post, I’ll make the case that:

  • The L&D job has just split in two — and most of us are still working on the wrong half.
  • There’s a new operating model coming for the role, and it’s already running inside a lot of the companies you’ve heard of.
  • The smartest critique of everything I’m about to argue comes from Ethan Mollick — and I think he’s half right.

The question we’ve been asking for the last two years — “how do I get faster at building?” — was the wrong one.

The real question is: can I look at fifteen AI-generated learning assets and decide which three are worth scaling — and put my name to that decision?

 
 

6 Reasons Universities Are Building Media Labs Now — from edtechmagazine.com by Brad Grimes
Digital production centers help institutions close the gap between academic training and professional practice.

Higher education is undergoing a significant transformation in how it prepares the next generation of media professionals. Across the country, universities are investing in state-of-the-art media labs — facilities built not around traditional classroom instruction, but around the tools, workflows and collaborative environments that define today’s professional production landscape. These spaces represent a fundamental rethinking of what it means to train students for careers in film, animation, gaming and digital storytelling.

 
 

Why Sal Khan’s AI revolution hasn’t happened yet, according to Sal Khan — from chalkbeat.org by Matt Barnum

Three years ago, as Khan Academy founder Sal Khan rolled out an AI-powered tutoring chatbot, he predicted a revolution in learning.

So far, the revolution hasn’t happened, he acknowledges.

“For a lot of students, it was a non-event,” Khan told me recently about his eponymous chatbot, Khanmigo. “They just didn’t use it much.”

Khan gives this analogy: Imagine he walked into a class, sat in the back of the room, and waited for students to seek out help. “Some will; most won’t,” he said. That’s been the experience with AI tutoring, he said. It doesn’t necessarily make students motivated to learn or fill in gaps in knowledge needed to ask questions.

“AI is going to help,” said Khan of this reimagined Khan Academy. “But I think our biggest lever is really investing in the human systems.”

 

The Role of Faculty in the University of the Future — from er.educause.edu by Tanya Gamby, David Kil, Rachel Koblic, Paul LeBlanc, Mihnea Moldoveanu, and George Siemens
In the age of AI, the true future of higher education lies not in replacing faculty but in freeing them to do what only humans can—build meaningful relationships, cultivate wisdom, and guide students through the ethical and intellectual challenges machines cannot navigate.

Today, the work of knowledge transfer is often done better, faster, with more precision, and more patiently by AI. These systems can provide nonjudgmental, individualized learning opportunities twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Think of AI as a “genius teaching assistant” who assumes much of the work of basic knowledge transfer, unlocking learning when students get stuck and providing real-time assessment. Such a genius TA would offer faculty dashboards that update student progress, flag those who are struggling, and recommend targeted interventions. These tasks free faculty to focus on building genuine relationships with students, using the classroom to foster human skills, and curating community. This may be the great gift of AI to education. But it requires a profound reimagining of faculty roles—perhaps the single biggest hurdle to reimagining higher education, and equally its greatest opportunity.

A concerned faculty member might hear all this and conclude they are becoming obsolete. The opposite is true. The evolution of faculty roles demands more—not less—of what makes a great teacher.

This means intervening in high-impact moments when the genius TA has not unlocked learning; curating class time to lift students from knowing material to applying it in contexts that require critical thinking, judgment, and discernment; and cultivating the human skills that will be most prized in the age of AI: effective communication, constructive dialogue, empathy, creativity, and professional disposition. Most importantly, it means building genuine relationships with students—that make them feel like they matter—the kind that fuels transformation.


From DSC:
A quick comment on one of the sentences in the article, which asserts:

Centers for teaching and learning, which have long supported faculty development at many institutions, will be among the busiest places on campus in the years ahead.

I would change the word will be to should:

Centers for teaching and learning, which have long supported faculty development at many institutions, should be among the busiest places on campus in the years ahead.

For that statement to be true, centers for teaching and learning need to be well-versed in the tools and pedagogies involved, plus in learning science. Those centers need to have credibility for faculty members to value their services. And that’s just it, isn’t it? The faculty members need to see those centers for teaching and learning as having something that they lack…that they need assistance with. Otherwise, if such centers are just viewed as superfluous, nothing much will change.

Also, my experience has been that if those centers for teaching and learning are in an IT group/department, they should be moved to the academic side of the house instead. Many faculty members don’t value people from IT enough to make changes in how they teach — no matter how qualified those people are. They view those people as “IT” only.


You might also be interested in the other articles in that series:


 

The “Cognitive Offloading” Paradox — from drphilippahardman.substack.com by Dr. Philippa Hardman
New research shows that offloading learning tasks to AI can improve – rather than erode – human thinking and learning

The Rise of the “Offloading Paradox”
In March 2026, the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education published a study that went beyond the question “does offloading hurt?” and asked a harder one: when students form genuine partnerships with AI — treating it as an intellectual collaborator rather than a passive tool — what actually happens to the way they think and learn? Specifically, do two cognitive responses — critical evaluation of AI outputs (what the researchers call cognitive vigilance) and strategic delegation to AI (cognitive offloading) — compete with each other, or can they coexist?

Based on previous research, Wang and Zhang hypothesised that cognitive offloading would hurt transformative learning. They expected the familiar story: delegation reduces cognitive struggle, struggle is where learning happens, therefore delegation undermines learning.

The study — 912 students across China, Europe, and the United States, using a three-wave time-lagged survey design that measured partnership orientation first, cognitive strategies two weeks later, and learning outcomes two weeks after that — found something more interesting than a simple reversal.

 

Make learning accessible to all in higher education — from The Times Higher Education

When accessibility is placed at the heart of teaching and learning, rather than treated as a bolt-on, every student benefits. This week’s spotlight guide offers advice on designing universally accessible learning, in-person and online. Find out how to ease the burden of disability disclosure with universal design for learning, better support neurodivergent students and students with hearing or vision issues, design more accessible assessments and ensure digital tools work for all.

 

 

“Learning ecosystems begin with people.” — Getting Smart


ASU/GSV Summit

There’s something about walking into a space like the ASU+GSV Summit that feels a little like stepping into a living, breathing idea. You hear fragments of possibility in passing conversations, see it in the way people lean in a little closer during sessions, feel it in the quiet moments when something lands and you know it’s going to stay with you. This year, what lingered wasn’t just the talk of innovation; it was a deeper pull toward something more human. A reminder that before we build better systems, we have to create better conditions for dreaming. And there’s a kind of quiet joy that emerges when educators find each other in that work, when ideas connect, and you can feel the bridges across networks and ecosystems getting stronger in real time.

And dreaming is not a given. It requires space, safety, and adults who understand the weight of what they’re holding. The most powerful moments weren’t about what we can do for learners, but how we show up with them. Adults who are still learning, still stretching, still willing to have their thinking reshaped are the ones who make room for young people to imagine beyond what they’ve seen. That kind of space doesn’t happen by accident. It’s protected. It’s intentional. It’s built by people who know their non-negotiables, who draw clear lines around dignity and belonging so learners can take risks without fear of losing themselves in the process.

Across conversations on pathways, experience, and AI, there was a steady undercurrent. Knowledge alone isn’t carrying the day anymore. Young people need chances to test, to try, to wrestle with ideas in real contexts. That’s where wisdom starts to take shape. AI showed up as a partner in that work, not the main character, but a tool that can expand thinking when used well. Still, the heartbeat of it all is human. It’s the relationships, the networks, the shared belief that we don’t have to do this alone. When adults come together to learn, to challenge each other, and to build something bigger than their own corner, they create the kind of ecosystems where young people don’t just prepare for the future, they begin to shape it.


Also from Getting Smart:

 
 

What the Future of Learning Looks Like in the Era of AI — from the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan, by Sean Corp

AI & the Future of Learning Summit brings industry, education leaders together to discuss higher education’s opportunity to lead, what students need, and what partnerships are possible

As artificial intelligence rapidly reshapes the nature of work and learning, speakers at the University of Michigan’s AI & the Future of Learning Summit delivered a clear message: higher education must take a leading role in defining what comes next.

One CEO of a leading educational technology company put it like this: “The only bad thing would be universities standing still.”

Universities must embrace their roles as providers of continuous, lifelong learning that evolves alongside technological change. 


This shift is already affecting early-career pathways. Employers are placing greater emphasis on experience, while traditional entry-level roles are becoming less accessible. There is often a gap between what a credential represents and the expectations of employers.

That gap is particularly evident in access to internships. Chris Parrish, co-founder and president of Podium, noted that millions of students compete for a limited number of internships each year, making it increasingly difficult to gain the experience employers demand.

“If you miss out on an internship, you’re twice as likely to be unemployed,” Parrish said. 

 
© 2025 | Daniel Christian