Ask The PhD Community

HigherEd AI Daily

May 3 – Consent, Careers, and the Competency Gap

Sunday, May 3, 2026

This week's stories put three urgent questions on the same table: who owns the course materials AI is being trained on, whether graduates are being prepared for the jobs that actually exist, and what it means that nearly half of all college students are reconsidering their majors because of AI.

INSIDE HIGHER ED — GOVERNANCE

ASU Launched an AI Course Builder Using Faculty Materials. It Did Not Ask First.

Arizona State University quietly launched a web application this month that allows anyone to create customized AI-powered learning modules for five dollars per month. The tool, called Atom, draws on instructional materials from ASU professors to generate course content tailored to a user's goals and skill level. Faculty members discovered after the fact that their words, recorded lectures, and course designs had been incorporated into a commercial product without their knowledge or consent.

The situation has drawn sharp faculty criticism and renewed attention to a question that institutions have largely deferred: who owns course materials when a university decides to use them as training data or content for an AI system? ASU's rollout represents one of the most concrete examples to date of an institution moving from AI experimentation into AI commercialization, and doing so faster than its governance structures could follow.

Why it matters for campuses

Every institution with online course materials, recorded lectures, or faculty-produced digital content faces a version of this question. The ASU case gives faculty senates, general counsels, and collective bargaining units a concrete incident to point to when pressing for clear policies on intellectual property, consent, and the boundary between institutional and faculty ownership of pedagogical work. Institutions that have not yet defined these boundaries should treat this week's coverage as a prompt to act before a similar situation lands on their own campus.

Read More

INSIDE HIGHER ED — RESEARCH

AI Skills Are Surging Among Students. Entry-Level Jobs Have Not Caught Up.

A new report from Handshake documents a striking mismatch between where students are building AI skills and where employers are currently hiring for them. Only 28 percent of graduating seniors say AI has been meaningfully integrated into their academic experience, while 58 percent believe they will need a deeper understanding of AI to succeed in the workplace. That 30-percentage-point gap reflects both a curriculum that has not kept pace with student expectations and an entry-level job market that is still in the process of redefining what it actually wants from new hires.

The data arrives alongside a separate Lumina Foundation-Gallup finding that 42 percent of college-eligible students say AI will influence which career they pursue, and that 10 percent have already changed their planned field of study due to AI concerns. Together, the two data sets suggest that students are responding to a labor market signal that neither campuses nor employers have fully articulated yet: they know AI matters for careers, but no one has told them precisely how.

Why it matters for campuses

Career services offices, curriculum committees, and academic advisers are all positioned to act on this data now. The gap between student AI exposure and employer expectations is not a technology problem; it is a curriculum and advising problem that institutions can address without waiting for the job market to fully clarify. Programs that can demonstrate AI integration in their course sequences and connect it explicitly to workforce outcomes will be better positioned both for enrollment and for graduate employment metrics.

Read More

U.S. NEWS & GALLUP-LUMINA — ACCESS

Nearly Half of College Students Have Considered Switching Majors Because of AI. No One Can Tell Them Where to Go Instead.

The Lumina Foundation-Gallup 2026 State of Higher Education survey found that 47 percent of currently enrolled college students have thought seriously about switching their major due to AI's potential impact on their career prospects, and 16 percent have already done so. Students pursuing technology degrees showed the highest anxiety, with 70 percent reporting they had given a change serious consideration; students in healthcare and the natural sciences reported the least. The common thread is uncertainty: students are responding to a signal from the labor market without any clear information about which fields are actually safe.

The problem, as U.S. News reporting this week makes clear, is that no one can reliably define what an "AI-proof" major looks like. Economists and workforce researchers disagree substantially on which roles and disciplines are most exposed to AI displacement, and the honest answer is that the field is moving faster than any occupational forecast can track. Students are making major and career decisions under conditions of genuine uncertainty, with limited guidance from the institutions they are paying to prepare them.

Why it matters for campuses

Academic advisers and faculty are now regularly fielding questions they do not have good answers to, and the Gallup-Lumina data quantifies what many already sense: student anxiety about AI and career outcomes is widespread and growing. Institutions that surface honest, discipline-specific conversations about AI's likely role in various fields, rather than offering generic reassurance, will serve their students better. This is also a moment for deans and department chairs to take seriously what students are signaling through their enrollment and switching behavior.

Read More

Tool of the Day

ETS Futurenav Adapt AI

Developed by ETS under the Praxis brand, Futurenav Adapt AI is the first standardized assessment designed to measure whether educators have the skills to use AI ethically and effectively in professional practice. The assessment takes fewer than 30 minutes and evaluates competency across three areas: understanding generative and large-language-model AI, navigating it ethically, and applying AI in an educational context. Results translate into personalized professional development recommendations, making it useful both for individual faculty self-assessment and for institutions designing targeted AI training programs.

Try it: Take the assessment yourself before the end of the semester and use your results to identify one concrete professional development priority for the summer; then share the tool with your department chair or faculty development office as a low-stakes, evidence-based starting point for a broader AI readiness conversation.

Visit ETS Futurenav Adapt AI

Faculty policies for AI, do we have all of the same view on this, understanding of our discipline, and how AI tools are being used?

Dr. Ali Green

Sources for This Edition

Inside Higher Ed (insidehighered.com)
U.S. News & World Report (usnews.com)
Lumina Foundation-Gallup 2026 State of Higher Education Study (gallup.com)
Handshake (joinhandshake.com)
ETS / Futurenav (ets.org)

askthephd.com
 | 
askthephd.substack.com
 | 
Unsubscribe

HigherEd AI Daily; Curated by Dr. Ali Green